Jose D Delacerda v. Midland Credit Management Inc

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 25, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-09130·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR Document 24 Filed 04/25/22 Page 1 of 14 Page ID #:147

1 THOMAS F. LANDERS [SBN 207335] tlanders@swsslaw.com 2 JOHN A. KELLY [SBN 324463] jkelly@swsslaw.com 3 SOLOMON WARD SEIDENWURM & SMITH, LLP 401 B Street, Suite 1200 4 San Diego, California 92101 (t) 619.231.0303 5 (f) 619.231.4755 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT 6 Attorneys for Defendant, Midland Credit Management, Inc. 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 JOSE D. DELACERDA, Case No. 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 ORDER 15 v. Judge: Hon. Mark C. Scarsi 16 MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 17 INC., Mag. Judge: Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth 18 Defendant. 19 20 1. INTRODUCTION 21 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or 23 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 24 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 25 the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 26 Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 27 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 28 P:01527790.3:87025.418 Case No. 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR Document 24 Filed 04/25/22 Page 2 of 14 Page ID #:148

1 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 2 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The 3 Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does 4 not entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets 5 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 6 a Party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 7 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 Good cause exists for the parties to enter into this stipulated protective order to 9 prevent the public dissemination of Defendant’s confidential business information, 10 and the personal financial information of the Plaintiff. The stipulated protective order 11 is necessary to allow the parties to exchange information for the purposes of this 12 litigation regarding Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant called Plaintiff in violation of 13 the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. 14 Parties anticipate that current written discovery and future discovery will 15 involve inquiry into Defendant’s policies and procedures concerning its processes for 16 placing and stopping phone calls to individuals, its own internal compliance 17 procedures related to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and related statutes, and 18 other confidential business information. The before mentioned confidential business 19 information is the appropriate subject of a protective order. (See S2 Automation LLC 20 v. Micron Tech., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 681 (D.N.M. 2012) (The disclosure of trade 21 secrets, sensitive commercial information, and information that gives a competitive 22 advantage are proper subjects of a protective order.); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 23 112, 114 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (The subject matter of confidential business information is 24 broad, including a wide variety of business information.).) If forced to reveal the 25 aforementioned information, Defendant may be subjected to a competitive 26 disadvantage by being forced to reveal compliance procedures which give it a marked 27 competitive advantage to its competitors as well as other confidential information 28 P:01527790.3:87025.418 -2- Case No. 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR Document 24 Filed 04/25/22 Page 3 of 14 Page ID #:149

1 vital to its operation. 2 Additionally, the protective order is necessary to allow for the personal 3 financial information of the Plaintiff to be disclosed and discussed without harm to 4 the Plaintiff. The protection of the personal financial information of a Plaintiff 5 constitutes good cause. (Horowitz v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, No. 14cv2512-MMA 6 RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172359, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016).) 7 For the forgoing reasons, good cause exists for this protective order. 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 11 of information or items under this Order. 12 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 14 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and as specified above in the Good Cause 15 Statement. 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 17 support staff). 18 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Nonparty that designates information or 19 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 22 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 27 an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 28 P:01527790.3:87025.418 -3- Case No. 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR Document 24 Filed 04/25/22 Page 4 of 14 Page ID #:150

1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a Party to this Action. 2 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 3 counsel. 4 2.9 Nonparty: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 5 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 6 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party 7 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a Party and have appeared in this 8 Action on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on 9 behalf of that Party, including support staff. 10 2.11 Party: any Party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 11 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 12 support staffs). 13 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or 14 Discovery Material in this Action. 15 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 16 services (for example, photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 17 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 18 and their employees and subcontractors. 19 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 20 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 22 from a Producing Party. 23 3. SCOPE 24 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 25 Protected Material (as defined above) but also any information copied or extracted 26 from Protected Material; all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected 27 Material; and any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their 28 P:01527790.3:87025.418 -4- Case No. 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:21-cv-09130-MCS-JPR Document 24 Filed 04/25/22 Page 5 of 14 Page ID #:151

1 Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

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

Jose D Delacerda v. Midland Credit Management Inc, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Jose D Delacerda v. Midland Credit Management Inc (Jose D Delacerda v. Midland Credit Management Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.
283 F.R.D. 671 (D. New Mexico, 2012)
Hammon v. Kelly
154 F.R.D. 11 (District of Columbia, 1994)