Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 30, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-02222·Unknown

Opinion

] || J. Bernard Alexander II] California Bar No. 128307 Alexander Morrison + FEHR LLP J. Bernard Alexander, III (SBN 128307) balexander@amfllp.com 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310) 394-0888 (310) 394 -0811 (facsimile) R. Scott Oswald Esq. Pro Hac Vice Tae Hoon Yang Esq. Pro Hac Vice Ashley M. Koerner Esq. Pro Hace Vice Soswald@employmentlawgroup.com tyang@employmentlawgroup.com akoerner@employmentlawgroup.com The Employment Law Group, P.C. 1717 K Street, NW, Suite 1110 Washington, D.C. 20006 (202) 415-2948 } (202) 261-2835 (facsimile) Attorneys for Plaintiff Jordan Williams Case No. 2:25—cv—02222—RGK-—BFM Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Vv. THE BOEING COMPANY, Defendant. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case No. 2:25-cv-0222-RGK-BFM

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

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

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

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

Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company (Jordan Williams v. The Boeing Company) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)