John Ellson v. Union Pacific Railroad

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 2, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-01767
StatusUnknown

This text of John Ellson v. Union Pacific Railroad (John Ellson v. Union Pacific Railroad) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Ellson v. Union Pacific Railroad, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01767-SSS-SP Document 27 Filed 03/02/23 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:418

1 ALFRED SHAUMYAN (SBN 266908) alfred@sdalawgroup.com 2 AREN DERBARSEGHIAN (SBN 304530) 3 aren@sdalawgroup.com AMIR ABDIZADEH (SBN 298114) 4 amir@sdalawgroup.com SDA LAW GROUP P.C. 5 535 N. Brand Blvd, Suite #280 Glendale, California 91203 6 Telephone: (818) 574-0845

7 Attorney for Plaintiff JOHN ELLSON 8 JOANNA E. MACMILLAN (SBN 281891) 9 jmacmillan@constangy.com AYAN K. JACOBS (SBN 329934) 10 ajacobs@constangy.com CONSTANGY, BROOKS, 11 SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 12 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 JOHN ELLSON, an individual Case No. 5:22-CV-01767-SSS-SPx Plaintiff, 19 v.

20 UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD ORDER RE: JOINT STIPULATED COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 and DOES 1-50, 22 Defendants.

25 26 27 28 1

ORDER RE STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-01767-SSS-SP Document 27 Filed 03/02/23 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:419

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 6 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 7 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 8 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 9 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve personnel records, employment information, and 12 healthcare and medical records, including protected health information covered by 13 HIPAA, for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 14 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such information may 15 consist of, among other things, leave and disability accommodation information and 16 payroll information. Federal courts have recognized the privacy protection accorded to 17 a person’s personnel records and employment information under Article 1, Section 1 of 18 the California Constitution. See, e.g., Bickley v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., No. C 08–5806 19 JSW (JL), 2011 WL 1344195, at *2 (N.D.Cal.2011) (unpublished) (collecting cases and 20 stating that “[a]n employee's personnel records and employment information are 21 protected by the constitutional right to privacy”); Official Unsecured Creditors Comm. 22 of Media Vision Tech., Inc. v. Jain, 215 F.R.D. 587, 590 (N.D.Cal.2003). Courts have 23 also found good cause to issue a protective order when medical information may be 24 subject to disclosure. See, e.g., Tenney v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 25 817CV00387CJCKESX, 2017 WL 8186684, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2017). 26 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 27 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 28 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 2

ORDER RE STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-01767-SSS-SP Document 27 Filed 03/02/23 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:420

1 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 2 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 3 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 4 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 5 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 6 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 7 not be part of the public record of this case. 8 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 11 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 12 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 13 material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 15 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 16 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 17 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 18 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 19 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 20 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 21 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 22 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 23 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 24 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 25 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 26 constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 28 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 3

ORDER RE STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 5:22-cv-01767-SSS-SP Document 27 Filed 03/02/23 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:421

1 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 2 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 3 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 4 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 5 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 6 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 7 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 9 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 11 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 12 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 13 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: the above-captioned lawsuit, i.e., Ellson v. Union Pacific Railroad 16 Company et al., Case No. 5:22-CV-01767-SSS-SP (C.D. Cal.). 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 18 of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 20 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 22 Statement.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John Ellson v. Union Pacific Railroad, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-ellson-v-union-pacific-railroad-cacd-2023.