Katherine Lewis v. ADP Technology Services, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 23, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-02583
StatusUnknown

This text of Katherine Lewis v. ADP Technology Services, Inc. (Katherine Lewis v. ADP Technology Services, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Katherine Lewis v. ADP Technology Services, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KATHERINE LEWIS, an individual, 10 , Case No. 2:23-cv-02583-SPG-PD Plaintiff, v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 12 ORDER ADP TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, 13 INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50 inclusive, 14 Defendant. 15 16 i7 || 1. A,PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 29 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 21 || warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 22 || the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 23 || does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 24 || that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 25 || limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 26 || applicable legal principles. 27 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 28 This action is likely to involve confidential, proprietary, and/or financial

1 || information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 2 || purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 3 || proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 4 || business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 5 || practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 6 || (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), sensitive medical 7 || information, compensation information about third parties, information regarding g || confidential compensation policies and procedures, and information otherwise 9 || generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 10 || protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 11 || or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 12 || prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 13 || adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 14 || that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 15 || preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 16 || litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 17 || justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 18 || designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 19 || without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 20 || manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 21 case. 22 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 23 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 24 || Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 25 || under seal: Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 26 || the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 27 || file material under seal. 28

1 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 2 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 3 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 4 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 5 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 6 || Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 7 || good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons g || with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 9 || Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 10 || of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 11 || submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 12 || sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 13 || protectable—constitute good cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 15 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 16 || relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 17 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 18 || 1tem or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 19 || seal in connection with a dispositive motion or tnal, the party seeking protection 20 || must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 21 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 22 || the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 24 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 25 || documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 26 || the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 27 || be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 28 || should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible.

1 2 || 2. DEFINITIONS 3 2.1 Action: Katherine Lewis v. ADP Technology Services, Inc. et 4 || al. (Case No. 2:23-cv-02583- SPG-PD). 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 6 || the designation of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 || how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 10 || Good Cause Statement. 1] 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 || their support staff). 13 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 || items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as IS || “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 || of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 19 || generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 22 || an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 || House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 27 || other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 28

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Katherine Lewis v. ADP Technology Services, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/katherine-lewis-v-adp-technology-services-inc-cacd-2023.