Leah Edwards v. Alorica, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 5, 2021
Docket8:19-cv-02124
StatusUnknown

This text of Leah Edwards v. Alorica, Inc. (Leah Edwards v. Alorica, 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
Leah Edwards v. Alorica, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 LEAH EDWARDS, Case No. 8:19-cv-02124-JWH-DFMx 11 12 Plaintiff, DISCOVERY MATTER 13 14 vs. [PXRXOXPXOXSXEXDX] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 16 ALORICA, INC., 17 Magistrate: Hon. Douglas F. McCormick 18 Defendant. 19 Trial Date: June 7, 2021 20 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or 23 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 24 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 25 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 26 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses 27 to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 1 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 2 principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve valuable personally identifiable, commercial, financial, 5 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 6 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such personal, 7 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, personally 8 identifiable information, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 9 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 10 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 11 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 12 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 13 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 14 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 15 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 16 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of 17 the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 18 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential 19 for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 20 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 21 part of the public record of this case. 22 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 23 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 24 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 25 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 26 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 28 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be 1 shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 2 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 3 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 4 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause 5 or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 6 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 7 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of 8 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 9 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 11 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 12 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 13 Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or 14 thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, 15 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 16 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 17 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 18 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 19 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 20 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, 21 or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to 22 file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 23 feasible. 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 27 information or items under this Order. 28 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 2 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 3 of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 4 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 5 staff). 6 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 7 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 8 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 9 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 10 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 11 responses to discovery in this matter. 12 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 13 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 14 consultant in this Action. 15 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 16 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 17 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal 18 entity not named as a Party to this action. 19 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 20 Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this 21 Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that 22 party, and includes support staff. 23 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 24 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 25 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 26 Material in this Action.

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)
Boakai v. Gonzales
447 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Leah Edwards v. Alorica, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leah-edwards-v-alorica-inc-cacd-2021.