Kierra Thomas v. Nissan North America, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 15, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00164
StatusUnknown

This text of Kierra Thomas v. Nissan North America, Inc. (Kierra Thomas v. Nissan North America, 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
Kierra Thomas v. Nissan North America, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 KIERRA THOMAS, an individual, ) CASE NO.: 8:23-cv-00164 FWS (JDEx) 11 ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 vs. ) ) 14 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) 15 a California Corporation, and DOES 1 ) through 10, inclusive, ) 16 ) Defendants. ) 17

18 19 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 23 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 24 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 25 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 26 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 27 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 28 applicable legal principles. 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve other valuable research, development, 3 commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 6 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 7 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 8 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 9 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 10 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 11 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 12 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 13 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 14 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 15 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 16 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 17 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 18 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 19 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 20 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 21 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 22 case. 23 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 24 PROCEDURE 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 26 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 27 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 28 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 1 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 2 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 3 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 4 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 5 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 6 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 7 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 8 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 9 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 10 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 11 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 12 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 13 confidential, privileged, or otherwise 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 18 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 19 under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 20 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 21 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 22 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 4. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 3 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 4 designation of information or items under this Order. 5 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 6 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 8 the Good Cause Statement. 9 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 10 their support staff). 11 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 12 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 15 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 16 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 17 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 18 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 19 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 20 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 21 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 22 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 23 counsel. 24 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 25 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 26 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 27 to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have appeared 28 in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 1 appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 3 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 4 support staffs). 5 4.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 6 Discovery Material in this Action.

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)
Kierra Thomas v. Nissan North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kierra-thomas-v-nissan-north-america-inc-cacd-2023.