Julian Vargas v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided November 18, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-08108·Unknown

Opinion

SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. DAVID RAIZMAN, CA Bar No. 129407 david.raizman@ogletree.com AMBER L. ROLLER, CA Bar No. 273354 amber.roller@ogletree.com J. NICHOLAS MARFORI, CA Bar No. 311765 nicholas.marfori@ogletree.com 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Attorneys for Defendants LABORATORIES, INC.; QUEST DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED

Counsel For Plaintiffs Listed on Next Page JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST and Case No. 2:19-cv-08108 DMG (MRWx) AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, individually on behalf of STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER themselves and all others similarly situated, (MRW VERSION 4/19) Plaintiffs, Check if submitted without material v. modifications to MRW form

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL Complaint Filed: September 18, 2019 LABORATORIES, INC., QUEST Trial Date: October 5, 2021 DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC., District Judge: Hon. Dolly M. Gee QUEST DIAGNOSTICS Courtroom 8C, First St. INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, Magistrate Judge: Hon. Michael R. Wilner inclusive, Courtroom 550, Roybal

Defendants.

Jonathan D. Miller (Bar No. 220848) jonathan@nshmlaw.com Alison M. Bernal (Bar No. 264629) alison@nshmlaw.com NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 Benjamin J. Sweet (admission pro hac vice) ben@nshmlaw.com 1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104 Pittsburgh, PA 15243 Telephone: (412) 857-5350

Matthew K. Handley (admitted pro hac vice) mhandley@hfajustice.com 777 6th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 Attorneys for Plaintiffs JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST, and

Plaintiffs Julian Vargas, Anne West, and American Council of the Blind (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and defendants Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., Quest Diagnostics Holdings, Inc., and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agree as follows: ]/1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 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 prosecuting this litigation may be } 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. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Defendants provide diagnostic testing information services. Quest patient service centers (“PSCs”) provide blood draw, urine collection, and other services to patients, including persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs brought this putative class action alleging that Quest’s electronic check-in tablets (“Kiosks”) at the PSCs are inaccessible to patients with visual impairments in violation of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California’s Disabled Persons Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class of

] Cace No 23°-19-cv-N82102 DMG (MRWy)

individuals with visual impairments who visited a PSC in the United States, and a California sub-class of those visiting PSCs in California, and who were allegedly denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations because of the Kiosks. Accordingly, this action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer/patient lists and pricing information and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding patients, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (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. For Plaintiffs, confidential information is likely to consist of medical and financial information. 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. 1}/}2, DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Julian Vargas, et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or } generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have

3 Cace No 23°-19-cv-N82102 DMG (MRWy)

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

Julian Vargas v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Julian Vargas v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc. (Julian Vargas v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)