Johnson v. Rush Enterprises, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 16, 2019·No. 1:19-cv-00105·Unknown

Opinion

1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP ESTHER P. HOLM, SB# 140279 2 E-Mail: Esther.Holm@lewisbrisbois.com ANDREW A. HIGGS, SB# 221891 3 E-Mail: Andrew.Higgs@lewisbrisbois.com 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1400 4 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 714.545.9200 5 Facsimile: 714.850.1030

6 Attorneys for Defendant/Cross- Claimant/Cross-Defendant, NATURAL 7 GAS FUEL SYSTEMS, INC. D.B.A. MOMENTUM FUEL TECHNOLOGIES 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION 11 12 WILLIAM LEE JOHNSON, an CASE No. 1:19-cv-00105-LJO-SAB incompetent adult, by and through his 13 Guardian ad Litem, Jerrad Johnson; ORDER RE STIPULATED JOAN JOHNSON; B & N PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 TRUCKING, INC., The Hon. Stanley A. Boone

15 Plaintiffs, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16 vs. Trial Date: None Set

17 NATURAL GAS FUEL SYSTEMS, INC. D.B.A. MOMENTUM FUEL 18 TECHNOLOGY; CARLETON TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COBHAM 19 PLC; PAPÉ TRUCKS, INC.; DOES 1 TO 100, INCLUSIVE, 20 Defendants. 21

22 AND RELATED CROSS-CLAIMS

23 24 Subject to the approval of the Court, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and 25 between plaintiffs, WILLIAM LEE JOHNSON, JOAN JOHNSON and B & N 26 TRUCKING, INC. (“Plaintiffs”), and defendants, NATURAL GAS FUEL 27 SYSTEMS, INC. D.B.A. MOMENTUM FUEL TECHNOLOGIES, CARLETON 1 TRUCKS, INC. d/b/a/ PAPÉ KENWORTH (collectively, “Defendants”) 2 (collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”), through Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ 3 respective counsel of record, that a Protective Order be entered in this action in 4 accordance with the following terms: 5 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 6 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 7 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 8 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 9 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 10 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 11 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 12 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 13 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 14 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 15 in Section 12.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 16 file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141(Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, 26) sets 17 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 18 when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 19 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 20 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, design and manufacturing 21 information and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 22 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 24 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 25 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 26 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 27 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 1 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 2 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 3 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 4 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 5 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 6 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 7 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 8 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 9 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 10 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 11 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 12 should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, entitled William Lee Johnson, et 15 al. v. Natural Gas Fuel Systems, Inc. D.B.A. Momentum Fuel Technologies, et al., 16 CASE NO. 1:19-cv-00105-LJO-SAB. 17 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 18 designation of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 20 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 21 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 22 the Good Cause Statement. 23 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 24 their support staff). 25 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 26 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 27 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 2 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 3 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 4 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 7 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 9 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 10 counsel. 11 2.9 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 12 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 13 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 14 party to this Action, but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 15 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 16 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 17 2.11 Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 18 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 19 support staffs). 20 2.12 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 21 Discovery Material in this Action. 22 2.13 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support 23 services (e.g. photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 24 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 25 and their employees and subcontractors. 26 2.14 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 27 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 2.15 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 2 Material from a Producing Party. 3 3. SCOPE 4 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 5 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 6 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 7 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 8 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 9 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the 10 trial judge.

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

Johnson v. Rush Enterprises, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Johnson v. Rush Enterprises, Inc. (Johnson v. Rush Enterprises, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)