Lavelle Maurice Jackson v. AutoZoners, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 16, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-00524·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 LAVELLE MAURICE JACKSON Case No. 5:25-cv-00524-SB-SSC 5 Plaintiff(s),

6 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE

7 AUTOZONERS, LLC, et al. ORDER1

8 Defendant(s).

10 11 1. INTRODUCTION 12 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 13 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 14 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 15 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 16 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 17 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 18 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 19 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 20 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 21 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 22 legal principles. 23 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 This action is likely to involve personal medical, employment, tax, 2 financial, and proprietary training records and information of parties 3 and third parties for which special protection from public disclosure and 4 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 5 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 6 consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 7 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or 8 personal medical, employment, financial, and tax information (including 9 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 10 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 11 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 12 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 13 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 14 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 15 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 16 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 17 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 18 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 19 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 20 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 21 22 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 23 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 24 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 25 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 26 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 1 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 2 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 4 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 5 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 6 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 7 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 8 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 9 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 10 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 11 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 12 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 13 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 14 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 15 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 16 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 17 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 18 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 19 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 20 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 21 22 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 23 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 24 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 25 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 26 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 27 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 1 seal must be provided by declaration. 2 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 3 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 4 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 5 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 6 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 7 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 8 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9

10 2. DEFINITIONS 11 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 13 designation of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 15 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 16 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 17 18 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 19 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 20 well as their support staff). 21 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 22 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 23 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 25 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 26 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 27 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 1 responses to discovery in this matter. 2 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 3 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 4 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 5 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 6 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 7 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 8 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 9 filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 10 applicable law. 11 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 12 this Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of 13 Record or any other outside counsel. 14 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 15 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Lavelle Maurice Jackson v. AutoZoners, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Lavelle Maurice Jackson v. AutoZoners, LLC (Lavelle Maurice Jackson v. AutoZoners, LLC) — 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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)