Lamonte Goode v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 20, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-02839
StatusUnknown

This text of Lamonte Goode v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. (Lamonte Goode v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc.) 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
Lamonte Goode v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 JOHN T. RICHARDS, ESQ. (SBN 159875) John@jtrlaw1.com 2 EVAN WILLIS, ESQ. (SBN 314797) evan@jtrlaw1.com 3 RICHARDS LAW FIRM, APLC 101 West Broadway, Suite 1950 4 San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 237-9800 5 Facsimile: (619) 238-9914 Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 LAMONTE GOODE

7 CRAIG J. MARIAM (SBN: 225280) cmariam@grsm.com 8 HAZEL MAE B. PANGAN (SBN: 272657) hpangan@grsm.com 9 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd floor 10 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 11 Facsimile: (877) 306-0043

12 Attorneys for Defendant DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 LAMONTE GOODE, an individual, ) CASE NO. 2:19-cv-2839 PA ) (RAOx) 17 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge: Hon. Percy Anderson 18 vs. ) ) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Rozella A. 19 DOLLAR TREE STORES, INC. and Oliver ) DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 20 ) ) Defendants. AMENDED STIPULATED 21 ) PROTECTIVE ORDER; ) [PROPOSED] ORDER 22 ) ) 23 24 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 26 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 27 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 28 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 1 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 2 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 3 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 4 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 5 under the applicable legal principles. 6 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, financial statements and pricing 8 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 9 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure 10 and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 11 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among 12 other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 13 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 14 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 15 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 16 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 17 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 20 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 21 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 22 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 23 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 24 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 25 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 26 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 27 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 28 /// 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 2 UNDER SEAL 3 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.4, below, that this 4 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 5 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 6 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 7 to file material under seal. 8 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 9 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 10 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 11 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 12 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 14 order require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 15 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 16 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 17 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 18 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 19 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 20 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 21 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 22 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 23 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 24 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 25 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 26 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 27 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 28 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 1 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 2 declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 3 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 4 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 5 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 6 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 7 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 8 redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 12 designation of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 14 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 15 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 16 the Good Cause Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 18 their support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 20 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 23 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 24 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 25 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 27 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 28 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 2 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 3 outside counsel.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Agricultural Insurance v. Potts
26 A. 27 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lamonte Goode v. Dollar Tree Stores, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamonte-goode-v-dollar-tree-stores-inc-cacd-2019.