Jonathan Pirtle v. FCA US, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 30, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-03257
StatusUnknown

This text of Jonathan Pirtle v. FCA US, LLC (Jonathan Pirtle v. FCA US, LLC) 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
Jonathan Pirtle v. FCA US, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Tionna Carvalho (SBN 299010) tcarvalho@slpattorney.com 2 Elizabeth Larocque (SBN 219977) 3 elarocque@slpattorney.com Strategic Legal Practices, APC 4 1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 6 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 7 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, JOHNATHON PIRTLE and 8 ROXANA HAUG 9 Steven D. Park (SBN 215219) 10 spark@parklawless.com 11 Vincent Tremonti (SBN 301571) vtremonti@parklawless.com 12 PARK LAWLESS & TREMONTI LLP 13 515 S. Flower Street, 18th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 14 Telephone: (213) 640-3770 15 Facsimile: (213) 640-3015 Attorney for Defendant, 16 FCA US, LLC 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 JOHNATHON PIRTLE1, et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-03257-JAK-MAR

21 Plaintiffs, 22 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 23 v. ORDER

24 FCA US, LLC, et al. 25 Defendants. 26 27

1 1 1. 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 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 6 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 7 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 8 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 9 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 10 applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 13 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 15 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 20 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 21 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 22 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 23 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 24 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 25 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 26 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 27 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 1 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 2 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 3 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 4 record of this case. 5 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 6 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 8 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 9 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 10 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 11 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 12 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 13 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 14 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 15 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 16 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 17 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 18 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 19 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 20 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 21 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 22 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 27 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 1 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 2 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 3 must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 6 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 7 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 8 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 9 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 4. DEFINITIONS 11 4.1 Action: Jonathan Pirtle, et al vs. FCA US LLC, et al, Case No: 2:25-cv- 12 03257-JAK-MAR 13 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 14 information or items under this Order. 15 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 16 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 17 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 18 Cause Statement. 19 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 20 support staff). 21 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 22 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 24 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 25 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 26 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 27 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 1 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 3 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 4 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 5 legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 6 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 7 this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have appeared in 8 this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared 9 on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jonathan Pirtle v. FCA US, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jonathan-pirtle-v-fca-us-llc-cacd-2025.