Lawrence v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

E.D. California

Lawrence v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

DecidedJuly 21, 2023

Docket1:22-cv-00931

StatusUnknown

This text of Lawrence v. Costco Wholesale Corporation (Lawrence v. Costco Wholesale Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lawrence v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 SUSAN LAWRENCE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00931-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

14 Defendant. (ECF No. 23)

15 16 On July 20, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated protective order for the Court’s approval.1 17 (ECF No. 23). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court 18 notes that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” to mean “information 19 (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 20 under California Law.” (Id. at 2) (alterations to capitalization and punctuation). Such a definition 21 improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe 22 that it qualifies for protection under California law and without ever disclosing the types of 23 information at issue as required by Local Rule 141(c)(1). 24 However, the parties elsewhere provide of description of certain “types” of confidential 25 information, which includes documents related to the incident (such as photographs) and 26 27 1 The Court did not locate a Word version of the proposed protective order in its email box. Should the 1 || information relating to Defendant’s operations (such as a manual). Accordingly, the Court will lim: 2 || the parties’ definition of confidential information to that information contained in the section of the 3 || protective order titled, “Description of Confidential Information.” (ECF No. 23, pp. 3-4). 4 Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 5 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 6 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 7 established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 8 discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See 9 ECF No. 23, p. 7; ECF No. 11, pp. 4-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conference and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website) 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 23) is approved, in part, as revised above. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 |] Dated: _ July 21, 2023 [Je hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

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

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 SUSAN LAWRENCE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00931-ADA-EPG 11 Plaintiffs, v. ORDER APPROVING, IN PART, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION,

14 Defendant. (ECF No. 23)

15 16 On July 20, 2023, the parties filed a stipulated protective order for the Court’s approval.1 17 (ECF No. 23). Upon review, the Court finds it acceptable in most respects. However, the Court 18 notes that the parties define the term “confidential information or items” to mean “information 19 (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 20 under California Law.” (Id. at 2) (alterations to capitalization and punctuation). Such a definition 21 improperly allows the parties to deem information confidential so long as they themselves believe 22 that it qualifies for protection under California law and without ever disclosing the types of 23 information at issue as required by Local Rule 141(c)(1). 24 However, the parties elsewhere provide of description of certain “types” of confidential 25 information, which includes documents related to the incident (such as photographs) and 26 27 1 The Court did not locate a Word version of the proposed protective order in its email box. Should the 1 || information relating to Defendant’s operations (such as a manual). Accordingly, the Court will lim: 2 || the parties’ definition of confidential information to that information contained in the section of the 3 || protective order titled, “Description of Confidential Information.” (ECF No. 23, pp. 3-4). 4 Additionally, the Court notes that “a protective order may not bind the Court or its 5 personnel.” Rangel v. Forest River, Inc., No. EDCV 17-0613 JFW (SS), 2017 WL 2825922, at *2 6 (C.D. Cal. June 29, 2017). Thus, to the extent that the protective order conflicts with the Court’s 7 established practices or Rules, e.g., such as by allowing the parties to bypass the Court’s informal 8 discovery-dispute-resolution process, the Court’s established practices or Rules will govern. (See 9 ECF No. 23, p. 7; ECF No. 11, pp. 4-5 (noting procedures regarding informal discovery conference and discovery motions); the Court’s Standard Procedures (same), available on the Court’s website) 8 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the parties’ stipulated protective order (ECF No. 23) is approved, in part, as revised above. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 |] Dated: _ July 21, 2023 [Je hey — 6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Lawrence v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lawrence-v-costco-wholesale-corporation-caed-2023.