Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 30, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-02222
StatusUnknown

This text of Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company (Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company) 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
Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

] || J. Bernard Alexander II] California Bar No. 128307 Alexander 2 || Morrison + FEHR LLP 3 J. Bernard Alexander, III (SBN 128307) balexander@amfllp.com 4 || 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 || (310) 394-0888 6 (310) 394 -0811 (facsimile) 7 || R. Scott Oswald Esq. Pro Hac Vice Tae Hoon Yang Esq. Pro Hac Vice 8 || Ashley M. Koerner Esq. Pro Hace Vice Soswald@employmentlawgroup.com 9 tyang@employmentlawgroup.com 10 akoerner@employmentlawgroup.com The Employment Law Group, P.C. 11 || 1717 K Street, NW, Suite 1110 Washington, D.C. 20006 12 | (202) 415-2948 13 |} (202) 261-2835 (facsimile) 14 || Attorneys for Plaintiff Jordan Williams 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL 17 DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 JORDAN WILLIAMS, 0 Case No. 2:25—cv—02222—RGK-—BFM Plaintiff, STIPULATED 21 PROTECTIVE ORDER Vv. 22 23 || THE BOEING COMPANY, 24 Defendant. 25 26 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 27 28 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case No. 2:25-cv-0222-RGK-BFM

1 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 2 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 3 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation 4 5 maybe warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 6 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 9 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 10 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 11 12 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 13

14 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 16 17 This action is likely to involve proprietary business information and 18 individual personal information for which special protection from public 19 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 21 warranted. Such confidential materials and proprietary information consist of, 22 among other things, the personal information of current and former employees 23 24 of the defendant, who are former colleagues of the plaintiff, including 25 information implicating privacy rights of third parties, information otherwise 26 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 27 28 1 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 2 decisions, or common law. This includes personal demographic information, 3 and employee personal work performance information for the purpose of 4 5 establishing comparator evidence. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 6 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality 7 of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled 8 9 to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 10 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 11 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 12 13 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of 14 the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 15 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 16 17 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 18 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 19

20 21 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 22 PROCEDURE 23 24 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 26 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 27 28 1 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 2 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 3 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 4 5 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 6 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause 7 must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 8 9 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 10 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 11 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 12 13 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 14 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 15 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party 16 17 seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 18 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission 19 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to 20 21 be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 22 protectable—constitute good cause. 23 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 25 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 26 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to 27 28 1 be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th 2 Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to 3 be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 4 5 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 6 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 7 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 9 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 10 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 11 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 12 13 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 14 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 15 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 16 17 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 18 4. DEFINITIONS 19 20 4.1 Action: Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company. 21 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 22 the designation of information or items under this Order. 23 24 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 25 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things 26 27 28 1 that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and 2 as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 4 5 well as their support staff). 6 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 7 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 8 9 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or 11 information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is 12 13 generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 14 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 15 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 16 17 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or 18 experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been 19 retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as 20 21 a consultant in this Action. 22 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 23 24 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 25 other outside counsel.

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)
Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jordan-williams-v-the-boeing-company-cacd-2025.