Krauss v. Walmart, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 16, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-00838·Unknown

Opinion

1 Aaron T. Winn (SBN 229763) Sarah A. Gilbert (SBN 312865) 2 Natalie F. Hrubos (PA State Bar No. 307255) Admitted Pro Hac Vice 3 DUANE MORRIS LLP 4 750 B Street, Suite 2900 San Diego, CA 92101-4681 5 Telephone: 619.744.2200 atwinn@duanemorris.com 6 sagilbert@duanemorris.com 7 nfhrubos@duanemorris.com

8 Attorneys for Defendants Walmart Inc. and Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12

13 HOPE KRAUSS, aka, DEONTE KRAUSS, No. 2:19-cv-0838 JAM DB individually and on behalf of all those 14 similarly situated, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 Plaintiff, 16 v. 17 WAL-MART, INC., a Delaware corporation; 18 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a 19 Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 20 21 Defendants.

22 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 25 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 26 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 27 following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties acknowledge that this 28 1 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 2 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 3 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 4 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 5 12.3, below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 6 seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 7 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 8 material under seal. 9 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 Defendants believe and represent that this action is likely to involve commercial, 11 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 12 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 13 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 14 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 15 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, 16 or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 17 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 18 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 19 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, 20 to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 21 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 22 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 23 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 24 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 25 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 26 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 27 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 28 1 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 2 record of this case. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1. Action: this pending federal lawsuit, entitled Hope Krauss aka Deonte 5 Krauss v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al., Case 2:19-CV-00838-JAM-DB. 6 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 7 of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 9 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 10 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 11 Statement. 12 2.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 13 support staff). 14 2.5. Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 15 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 17 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 1 2.10. Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 2 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 3 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 4 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 2.11. Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 7 support staffs). 8 2.12. Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces a Disclosure or 9 Discovery Material in this Action. 10 2.13. Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 11 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 12 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 13 their employees and subcontractors. 14 2.14. Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 15 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.15. Receiving Party: a Party that receives a Disclosure or Discovery Material 17 from a Producing Party. 18 3. SCOPE 19 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as 20 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected 21 Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and 22 (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that 23 might reveal Protected Material. 24 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial 25 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 26 27 28 1 4. DURATION 2 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 3 imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees 4 otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be 5 deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or 6 without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of 7 all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time 8 limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable 9 law. 10 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 11 5.1. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection.

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

Krauss v. Walmart, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Krauss v. Walmart, Inc. (Krauss v. Walmart, 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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)