Julian Vargas v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, Inc.

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

Opinion

1 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 2 DAVID RAIZMAN, CA Bar No. 129407 david.raizman@ogletree.com 3 AMBER L. ROLLER, CA Bar No. 273354 amber.roller@ogletree.com 4 J. NICHOLAS MARFORI, CA Bar No. 311765 nicholas.marfori@ogletree.com 5 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, California 90071 6 Telephone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 7 Attorneys for Defendants 8 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC.; QUEST 9 DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS INCORPORATED 10

11 Counsel For Plaintiffs Listed on Next Page 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST and Case No. 2:19-cv-08108 DMG (MRWx) AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE 16 BLIND, individually on behalf of STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER themselves and all others similarly 17 situated, (MRW VERSION 4/19) 18 Plaintiffs, Check if submitted without material 19 v. modifications to MRW form

20 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL Complaint Filed: September 18, 2019 LABORATORIES, INC., QUEST 21 Trial Date: October 5, 2021 DIAGNOSTICS HOLDINGS, INC., District Judge: Hon. Dolly M. Gee QUEST DIAGNOSTICS 22 Courtroom 8C, First St. INCORPORATED; and DOES 1-10, Magistrate Judge: Hon. Michael R. Wilner inclusive, 23 Courtroom 550, Roybal

24 Defendants. 25

26 27 28 1 Jonathan D. Miller (Bar No. 220848) jonathan@nshmlaw.com 2 Alison M. Bernal (Bar No. 264629) 3 alison@nshmlaw.com NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 4 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 5 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 6 Telephone: (805) 963-2345 Facsimile: (805) 284-9590 7 8 Benjamin J. Sweet (admission pro hac vice) 9 ben@nshmlaw.com 10 NYE, STIRLING, HALE & MILLER, LLP 1145 Bower Hill Road, Suite 104 11 Pittsburgh, PA 15243 12 Telephone: (412) 857-5350

13 Matthew K. Handley 14 (admitted pro hac vice) mhandley@hfajustice.com 15 HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 16 777 6th St. NW Washington, DC 20001 17 Telephone: (202) 559-2411 18 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 19 JULIAN VARGAS, ANNE WEST, and 20 AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiffs Julian Vargas, Anne West, and American Council of the Blind 2 (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), and defendants Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, 3 Inc., Quest Diagnostics Holdings, Inc., and Quest Diagnostics Incorporated 4 || (collectively, “Defendants”), by and through their respective counsel of record, 5 || hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 6|]/1. INTRODUCTION 7 1.1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 8 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 9 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 10 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 11 |} warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 12 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 13 |} Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 14 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 15 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 16 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in 17 || Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 18 || confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 19 || that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 20 || permission from the court to file material under seal. 21 1.2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 22 Defendants provide diagnostic testing information services. Quest patient 23 || service centers (“PSCs”) provide blood draw, urine collection, and other services to 24 || patients, including persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs brought this putative class 25 || action alleging that Quest’s electronic check-in tablets (“Kiosks”) at the PSCs are 26 || inaccessible to patients with visual impairments in violation of the American with 27 || Disabilities Act (“ADA”), California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California’s 28 || Disabled Persons Act. Plaintiffs seek certification of a nationwide class of

] Cace No 23°-19-cv-N82102 DMG (MRWy)

1 individuals with visual impairments who visited a PSC in the United States, and a 2 California sub-class of those visiting PSCs in California, and who were allegedly 3 denied full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, 4 advantages, or accommodations because of the Kiosks. 5 Accordingly, this action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer/patient lists 6 and pricing information and other valuable research, development, commercial, 7 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 8 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 9 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 10 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 11 regarding patients, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 12 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 13 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 14 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 15 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 16 or common law. For Plaintiffs, confidential information is likely to consist of 17 medical and financial information. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 20 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 21 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 22 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 23 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 24 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 25 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 26 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 27 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 28 1}/}2, DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: Julian Vargas, et al. v. Quest Diagnostics Clinical Laboratories, 3 || Inc., et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:19-cv-08108-DMG-MRW 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 || of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 || how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 8 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 9 || Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 11 || their support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 16 || of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 17 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 18 |} generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 19 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 20 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 21 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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)