Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 8, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-01292·Unknown

Opinion

bhamburger@gibsondunn.com 2 LAUREN M. BLAS, SBN 296823 lblas@gibsondunn.com 3 GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197 Telephone: 213.229.7000 5 Facsimile: 213.229.7520 6 Attorneys for Defendants AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. (now known as 7 Amazon.com Services LLC) and AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC 8 ROBERT J. WASSERMAN, SBN 258538 9 rwasserman@mayallaw JENNY D. BAYSINGER, SBN 251014 10 jbaysinger@mayallaw MAYALL HURLEY, P.C. 11 2453 Grand Canal Boulevard Stockton, CA 95207-8253 12 Telephone: 209.477.3833 Facsimile: 209.473.4818 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14 LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY, individually, on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy for the 15 LWDA 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 LEILANI KRYZHANOVSKIY, individually, CASE NO. 2:21-cv-01292-DAD-BAM 19 on behalf of all others similarly situated, and as a proxy for the LWDA, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC., a 23 Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability 24 company; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26 27 28 2 and Local Rule 141.1 of the Local Rules of the District Court for the Eastern District of California, by 3 and between Plaintiff Leilani Kryzhanovskiy and Defendants Amazon.com Services, Inc. (now known 4 as Amazon.com Services LLC) and Amazon.com Services LLC (“Defendants”) (collectively, the 5 “Parties”), by and through their respective undersigned counsel of record, that in order to facilitate the 6 exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on 7 disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, the Parties respectfully request that the 8 Court sign and enter the [Proposed] Order following this Stipulated Protective Order to govern the 9 production of documents and the conduct of discovery in this action. 10 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 11 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, 12 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 13 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties 14 hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties 15 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 16 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 17 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 18 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 19 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the 20 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 21 from the court to file material under seal. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or 22 otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed entirely under seal if the confidential portions can 23 be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 24 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 25 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 26 why redaction is not feasible. 27 28 2 This action is likely to involve valuable confidential, proprietary and/or private information for 3 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution 4 of this litigation is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 5 among other things, confidential business information, information regarding confidential business 6 practices, or other confidential commercial information (including information implicating the privacy 7 rights of third parties), contact information and/or personal identifying information (including SSNs) 8 of third parties, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 9 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 10 common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 11 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 12 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 13 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 14 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 15 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 16 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 17 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 18 of this case. 19 3. DEFINITIONS 20 3.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information 21 or items under this Order. 22 3.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 23 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 24 Civil Procedure 26(c), or that contain personal identifying or private information, or that contain 25 information received in confidence from third parties that is produced in this Action and designated as 26 “CONFIDENTIAL” OR “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 27 28 2 sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would 3 create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 4 3.4 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 5 as their support staff). 6 3.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 7 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 3.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 9 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 10 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery 11 in this matter. 12 3.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 13 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant 14 in this action. 15 3.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel 16 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 17 3.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 18 entity not named as a Party to this action. 19 3.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action 20 but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf 21 of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 22 3.11 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 23 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 24 3.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material 25 in this action.

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

Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, Inc. (Kryzhanovskiy v. Amazon.com Services, 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)