Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 27, 2020·No. 1:18-cv-01689·Unknown

Opinion

MARIA C. RODRIGUEZ (SBN 194201) mcrodriguez@mwe.com CHRISTOPHER A. BRAHAM (SBN 293367) cbraham@mwe.com MARJORIE C. SOTO (SBN 313290) mcsoto@mwe.com 2049 Century Park East Suite 3200 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730 Attorneys for Defendant Eric B. Kingsley, Esq. Kelsey M. Szamet, Esq. KINGSLEY & KINGSLEY, APC 16133 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1200 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 990-8300 Fax: (818) 990-2903 Emil Davtyan, Esq. CORPORATION 5959 Topanga Canyon Blvd., Suite 130 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (818) 875-2008 Fax: (818) 722-3974 Attorneys for Plaintiff

ERNESTO LIMON, an individual, on CASE NO. 1:18-CV-01689-SKO behalf of himself and others similarly Hon. Sheila K. Oberto situated, Plaintiff, v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE CIRCLE K STORES INC.; and DOES ORDER 1 thru 50, inclusive, Defendants. (Doc. 42) Complaint Filed: December 11, 2018 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 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. COMPLIANCE WITH LOCAL RULE 141.1(c) Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c)(1), this action is likely to involve confidential business information such as company policies, processes, and trainings regarding hiring, background checks, disciplinary actions, and terminations of employees. As a result of this action, trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Because Plaintiff will be seeking certification of a class of Defendant’s employees, this action is also likely to involve confidential information of third party employees such as contact information, dates of employment, positions, and other private and personnel information that Defendant has an obligation to protect. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c)(2), there is a particularized need for the protection of confidential and proprietary business information such as company policies, processes, and trainings regarding employee hiring, background checks, disciplinary actions, and terminations because companies are entitled to keep policies private as they are integral to running a business with employees that span the State of California and, possibly in some instances, across the nation. There is also a particularized need for the protection of confidential and private third party personnel information including, but not limited to, contact information, dates of employment, and positions. These company policies and processes, as well as private personnel information, implicate the privacy rights of third party employees who are not a party to this action and who may have been involved in hiring, disciplinary action, or termination by the company. Such confidential, private, and proprietary materials and information is otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Pursuant to Rule 141.1(c)(3), the need for the protection of confidential and proprietary materials that may be implicated in this action should be addressed by court order, as opposed to a private agreement, in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. Furthermore, the court should address the need for protection as one party has a stronger interest to maintain confidential business information while the other party may not have the same incentive. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 141 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document

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

Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc. (Limon v. Circle K Stores Inc.) — 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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)