Kyle McCune v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 6, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-07890·Unknown

Opinion

SSaHrAahP SEhRaOpe LroA, WCa Fl.I BRaMr No. 281748 sarah@shaperolawfirm.com 100 Pine St., Ste. 530 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 273-3504 Facsimile: (415) 358-4116 Attorneys for Plaintiff A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations JOHN C. DINEEN, Cal Bar No. 222095 jdineen@sheppardmullin.com 501 West Broadway, 18th Floor San Diego, California 92101-3598 Telephone: 619.338.6500 Facsimile: 619.234.3815 Attorneys for Defendant WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KYLE MCCUNE, an individual Case No. 2:24-CV-07890-FLA-SK Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; and [DISCOVERY MATTER: Does 1-50, inclusive REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE STEVE Defendants. KIM] Assigned to: Hon. Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha Courtroom 6B, 6th Floor Complaint Filed: July 29, 2024 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected Material), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Good cause exists for a Protective Order because both Plaintiff and Defendant’s document productions may disclose information relating to (1) private bank customer information, such as account numbers; (2) Plaintiff’s Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”); (3) the PII of non-party employees of Defendant; (4) the confidential business practices of Defendant, which Defendant safeguards as a means to ensure competitiveness in the financial industry; and (5) Defendant’s confidential investigation practices relating to loss mitigation and foreclosure. See Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617, 623 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (identifying privacy interests, among others when considering existence of good cause); Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 554 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing trade secrets and confidential business information as legitimate categories of information subject to protection). 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Kyle McCune v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., et al., Case No. 2:24- CV-07890-FLA-SK, originally filed in Santa Barbara Superior Court on July 29, 2024 and removed to the Central District of California on September 16, 2024. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, as defined in Section 13 (FINAL DISPOSITION), the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the inapplicable designation. 5.2 Manner and Timing of Designations. Except as otherwise provided in this Order (see, e.g., second paragraph of Section 5.2(a) below), or as otherwise

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

Kyle McCune v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Kyle McCune v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (Kyle McCune v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)