Kimberly Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 4, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-06208·Unknown

Opinion

1 THE WAND LAW FIRM, P.C. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL Aubry Wand (SBN 281207) 2 400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300 KONECKY LLP Culver City, CA 90230 Todd M. Schneider (SBN 158253) 3 Telephone: (310) 590-4503 Jason H. Kim (SBN 220279) Facsimile: (310) 590-4596 4 E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 5 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-1700 6 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 7 E-mail: tschneider@schneiderwallace.com jkim@schneiderwallace.com

8 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class 9

GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 10 Timothy K. Branson (SBN 187242) Joni B. Flaherty (SBN 272690) 11 Patrick J. Mulkern (SBN 307272) 101 W. Broadway, Suite 2000 12 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 230-7789 13 Facsimile: (619) 696-7124 E-mail: tbranson@grsm.com 14 jflaherty@grsm.com pmulkern@grsm.com 15

Attorneys for Defendant 16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 KIMBERLY BANKS and CAROL Case No.: 2:20-cv-06208 DDP (RAOx) CANTWELL, individually, and on 19 behalf of all others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 20 Plaintiffs,

21 v.

22 R.C. BIGELOW, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 23

Defendants. 24

25 26 27 ___________________________________ 1 Plaintiffs Kimberly Banks and Carol Cantwell, on behalf of themselves and all 2 others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”) and Defendant R.C. Bigelow, Inc. (“Defendant”) 3 (collectively, “the Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, having 4 met and conferred on issues concerning the production of confidential, proprietary, or 5 private information in this case, hereby enter into the following Stipulation: 7 A. 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 disclosure 10 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 11 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 12 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 13 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 14 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 15 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 16 B. Good Cause Statement 17 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 18 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 19 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 20 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 21 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 22 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 23 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 24 (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 25 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 26 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 27 common law. 1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 3 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 4 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 5 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends 6 of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 7 intent of the parties that information will not be designated for tactical reasons and that 8 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 9 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of 10 the public record of this case. 11 C. Acknowledgement of Procedure for Filing Under Seal 12 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 13 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 14 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 15 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 16 material under seal. 17 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 18 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 19 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 20 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 21 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 22 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 23 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 24 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 25 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 26 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 27 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 1 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 2 constitute good cause. 3 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 4 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 5 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 6 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 7 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 8 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 9 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 10 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 11 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 12 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 13 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 14 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 15 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be 16 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 17 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 19 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 20 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 21 of information or items under this Order. 22 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 23 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 24 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 25 Statement.

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

Kimberly Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Kimberly Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc. (Kimberly Banks v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)