Lina Noory v. Camden Development, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 21, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-01767·Unknown

Opinion

i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LINA NOORY, I] , Case No. 2:20-cv-01767-AB-GJS Plaintiff, 12 Vv. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER! CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC.; 14 and DOES 1-5, 15 Defendants. 16 17 l. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 26 27 4g || | This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures.

1 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 || under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve medical, business and financial 5 || documentation, for which protection from public disclosure and from use for any 6 || purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such medical, 7 || employment and financial materials and information consist of, among other things, 8 || personal medical records, confidential business or financial information, information 9 || regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 10 |} development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 11 || rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 12 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 13 || federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 14 || expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 15 || confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 16 || are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 17 || necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 18 || address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of Justice, a 19 |] protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 20 || parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 21 |! and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 22 || maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 23 || should not be part of the public record of this case. 24 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 26 || Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 27 |i under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 28

1 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 2 || to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 8 || Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 9 || require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 10 || reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 11 || respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 12 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 13 || without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 14 || material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 15 || otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 18 || relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 19 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 20 || each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 21 || under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 22 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 23 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 24 || the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 27 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 28 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document,

1 |i shall be filed, Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 2 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: Lina Noory v. Camden Development, Inc., Case No. 2:20-cv- 5 || 01767-AB-GJS. 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 7 || designation of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 || how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 10 |} protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 11 || the Good Cause Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 13 |) their support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 15 || items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 || “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 18 || of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 19 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 20 || generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 23 || an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 25 || House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 26 || counsel. 27 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 28 || 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

Lina Noory v. Camden Development, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Lina Noory v. Camden Development, Inc. (Lina Noory v. Camden Development, 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)