Julie Bunganich v. Target Corporation

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided November 20, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01914·Unknown

Opinion

Nevada Bar No. 7567 Nevada Bar No. 8725 ATTORNEYS AT LAW 7670 W Lake Mead Blvd, Suite 200 Las Vegas, Nevada 89128 Telephone: (702) 257-1997 Facsimile: (702) 257-2203 lyoung@lgclawoffice.com jwhite@lgclawoffice.com Attorneys for Defendant,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA JULIE BUNGANICH, individually, CASE NO: 2:25-cv-01914 Plaintiff, v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER MATERIALS TARGET CORPORATION dba TARGET, a Foreign Corporation; E. E. Newcomer Enterprises, Inc. dba D.H. Pace Company, Inc. a Foreign Corporation, DOES I-X, inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS I-X, inclusive, Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by the undersigned attorneys for the respective parties, that with regard to material disclosed in the course of the above-captioned lawsuit (“Lawsuit”) which constitute or contain trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information of the parties (“Confidential Material”), the following procedures shall govern: 1. This Order is meant to encompass all forms of disclosure which may contain Confidential Material, including any document, pleading, motion, exhibit, declaration, affidavit, deposition transcript, inspection and all other tangible items (electronic media, photographs, videocassettes, etc.). 2. The parties may designate any Confidential Material produced or filed in this Lawsuit as confidential and subject to the terms of this Order by marking such materials “Confidential”. If any material has multiple pages, this designation need only be placed on the first page of such material. Any material designated as “Confidential” shall not be disclosed to any person or entity, except to the parties, counsel in this Lawsuit, and the Court. 3. Any material designated as confidential pursuant to paragraph 2 above shall be used solely for the purposes of this Lawsuit and for no other purpose. 4. Prior to disclosure of any Confidential Material, each person to whom disclosure is to be made shall execute a written “Confidentiality Agreement” (in the form attached hereto) consenting to be bound by the terms of this Order. The parties, counsel for the respective parties (including legal assistants and other personnel) and the Court are deemed to be bound by this Order and are not required to execute a Confidentiality Agreement. 5. Only counsel of record in this Lawsuit shall be permitted to disseminate Confidential Material. Upon dissemination of any Confidential Material, each non-designating counsel of record in this Lawsuit shall maintain a written record as to: (1) the identity of any person given Confidential Material, and (2) the identity of the Confidential Material so disseminated (such as by “Bates stamp” number). Such record shall be made available to the designating party upon request. 6. If additional persons become parties to this Lawsuit, they shall not have access to any Confidential Material until they execute and file with the Court their written agreement to be bound by the terms of this Order. 7. In the event that any question is asked at a deposition that calls for the disclosure of Confidential Material, the witness shall answer such question (unless otherwise instructed not to do so on grounds of privilege) provided that the only persons in attendance at the deposition are persons who are qualified to receive such information pursuant this Order. Deposition testimony may be designated as confidential following the testimony having been given provided that: (1) such testimony is identified and designated on the record at the deposition, or (2) non-designating counsel is notified of the designation in writing within thirty days after receipt by the designating party of the respective “Confidential” pursuant to paragraph 2 above. When Confidential Material is incorporated in a deposition transcript, the party designating such information confidential shall make arrangements with the court reporter not to disclose any information except in accordance with the terms of this Order. 8. If a deponent refuses to execute a Confidentiality Agreement, disclosure of Confidential Material during the deposition shall not constitute a waiver of confidentiality. Under such circumstances, the witness shall sign the original deposition transcript in the presence of the court reporter and no copy of the transcript or exhibits shall be given to the deponent. 9. With respect to any communications to the Court, including any pleadings, motions or other papers, all documents containing Confidential Material shall be done in accordance with Local Rules IA 10-4 and IA 10-5, in additions to the directives set forth in Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) and Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1097 (9th Cir. 2016). All communications shall indicate clearly which portions are designated to be “Confidential” through a Motion to Seal and/or redaction 10. The Court may order the court files and records, or any part thereof, to be sealed or redacted, provided the Court makes and enters written findings that the specific sealing or redaction is justified by identified compelling privacy or safety interests that outweigh the public interest in access to the court records. 11. If a non-designating party is subpoenaed or ordered to produce Confidential Material by another court or administrative agency, such party shall promptly notify the designating party of the pending subpoena or order and shall not produce any Confidential Material until the designating party has had reasonable time to object or otherwise take appropriate steps to protect such Confidential Material. 12. Pursuant to LR 1-1(b)(2), Judge Couvillier requires the parties to follow the procedures outlined below regarding any discovery dispute. No discovery motion may be filed until the following procedure has been followed and such motion is ordered by Judge Couvillier: 1. If a discovery dispute arises the parties must first meet and confer to try to resolve their person, videoconference, or telephone. A mere exchange of letters or e-mails does not satisfy the meet and confer requirement. 2. If the parties are unable to resolve their dispute informally after a good-faith effort, the parties must file a single document captioned “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute” that addresses each one of the following items: i. A brief, joint summary of the discovery dispute not to exceed one (1) page; ii. A restatement of the full text of the discovery requests, or deposition question, in dispute as originally stated and the responses to the requests. This may be done in single-spaced, 10-font. iii. A joint summary of the meet-and-confer efforts as required by LR IA 1-3(f), which includes: (1) a summary of discussions; (2) identification of time, place, manner, and participants; and (3) certification from counsel that, despite a sincere effort, the parties were unable to resolve or narrow the dispute without court intervention. This joint meet and-confer summary may not exceed two (2) pages. iv. An explanation, without boilerplate language, of the position taken by each side, not to exceed two (2) pages per side. v. Each side must make a proposal of compromise or resolution of the disputed discovery (e.g., request, interrogatory, deposition question). The proposal may not exceed two (2) pages per side. 3. Upon review of the filed “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute,” Judge Couvillier may set a telephonic conference, order written briefing, or enter an order deciding the dispute without conference or briefing. 4. If an adverse party or counsel is not responsive or fails to cooperate in this process, a party may file a unilateral “Stipulation Regarding Discovery Dispute -Filed Unilaterally in Compliance with Standing Order,” and set forth in detail efforts to meet and confer and obtain cooperation 13. Inadvertent failure to designate any material “Confidential” or shall not constitut

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

Julie Bunganich v. Target Corporation, (D. Nev. 2025).

Julie Bunganich v. Target Corporation (Julie Bunganich v. Target Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bradley v. Sugarbaker
809 F.3d 8 (First Circuit, 2015)