Kristi Williamson v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 23, 2025
Docket8:24-cv-02358
StatusUnknown

This text of Kristi Williamson v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated (Kristi Williamson v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated) 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
Kristi Williamson v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Frederic Gordon, SBN 98994-CA 201 South Lake Avenue 2 Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (619) 572-2210 3 fgordonapc@gmail.com

4 William D. Marler, WSBA #17233 Ilana Korchia, WSBA #60180 5 Marler Clark, Inc., PS 180 Olympic Drive S.E. 6 Bainbridge Island, WA 98110 Telephone: (206) 346-1888 7 Fax: (206) 346-1898 bmarler@marlerclark.com 8 ikorchia@marlerclark.com Attorneys for Plaintiff, 9 KRISTI WILLIAMSON

10 Clifford A. Clancey E-Mail: cclancey@zellaw.com 11 Tracey Miller E-Mail: tmiller@zellaw.com 12 ZELMS ERLICH LENKOV AND MACK 20920 Warner Center Lane, Suite B 13 Woodland Hills, CA 91367-6540 Telephone: 213-785-3473 14 Attorneys for Defendant 15 The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 18 19 KRISTI WILLIAMSON, an individual, CASE NO. 8:24-cv-02358-JWH-DFM

20 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE 21 v. ORDER

22 THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY INCORPORATED, a Delaware 23 Corporation; Complaint Filed: November 13, 2024 24 Defendant. Trial Date: February 2, 2026

26 27 28 1 STIPULATION 2 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 4 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 5 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 6 Plaintiff KRISTI WILLIAMSON and Defendant THE CHEESECAKE FACTORY 7 INCORPORATED, (collectively “the Parties”) hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 8 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 9 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 10 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 11 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 12 principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that 13 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 14 under seal; Civil Local 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 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This action is likely to involve customer and pricing lists and other valuable 19 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information 20 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 21 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 22 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 23 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 24 research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating 25 privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public 26 (e.g., names, addresses, and other contact information for Defendant’s employees and 27 agents), or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 28 1 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 2 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 3 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 4 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 5 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 6 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated 7 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 8 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 9 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 10 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 11 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 12 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 13 seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 14 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under 15 seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 16 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 17 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of 18 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. 19 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., 20 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 21 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 22 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 23 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 24 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of 25 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 26 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 28 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall 1 be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. 2 Creditors Ass’n, 28 3 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 3 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection 4 with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 5 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 6 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must 7 be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or 8 otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 9 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 10 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 11 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 12 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 4. DEFINITIONS 14 A. Action: The above-entitled case styled Kristi Williamson v. The 15 Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, pending before the United States 16 District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. Case No. 17 8:24-cv-02358-JWH-DFM. 18 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 19 designation of information or items under this Order. 20 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 22 for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 23 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 24 D.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kristi Williamson v. The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristi-williamson-v-the-cheesecake-factory-incorporated-cacd-2025.