Lisa D. Smith v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 13, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-01551·Unknown

Opinion

LISA D. SMITH, Case No. 2:21-cv-01551-PSG-MRWx Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Vv. Judge: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., Magistrate Judge: Hon. Michael R. Wilner Defendant. Complaint Filed: February 19, 2021 Check if submitted without material modifications to MRW form

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is 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 79-5 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. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Good cause exists for the parties to enter into this stipulated protective order to prevent the public dissemination of Defendant’s and Non-party credit bureaus confidential business information, and the personal financial information of the Plaintiff. The stipulated protective order is necessary to allow the parties to exchange information for the purposes of this litigation regarding Plaintiff’s claims that Defendant through its exchange of information with the major credit reporting bureaus caused the Plaintiff’s delinquent credit card account to be reported twice on her credit report(s). Parties anticipate that current written discovery and future discovery will involve inquiry into Defendant’s policies and procedures concerning its communications with the major credit reporting bureaus, its own internal compliance Collection Practices Act, and related statutes, its data retentions policies, and other confidential business information. The before mentioned confidential business information is the appropriate subject of a protective order. (See S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 681 (D.N.M. 2012) (The disclosure of trade secrets, sensitive commercial information, and information that gives a competitive advantage are proper subjects of a protective order.); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (The subject matter of confidential business information is broad, including a wide variety of business information.).) If forced to reveal the aforementioned information, Defendant will be subjected to a competitive disadvantage by being forced to reveal its compliance procedures which give it a marked competitive advantage to its competitors as well as other confidential information vital to its operation. Additionally, disclosure may impact its business relationships with each respective major credit reporting agency as it communicates with each individually and confidentially. For the same reasons mentioned above, the protective order is necessary to protect the confidential business information and data of the nonparty credit bureaus in this case which was shared in confidence with Defendant. Additionally, the protective order is necessary to allow for the personal financial information of the Plaintiff to be disclosed and discussed without harm to the Plaintiff. The protection of the personal financial information of a Plaintiff constitutes good cause. (Horowitz v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, No. 14cv2512-MMA RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172359, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016).) For the forgoing reasons, good cause exists for this protective order. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition will be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or Non-Party that designates information

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

Lisa D. Smith v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Lisa D. Smith v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. (Lisa D. Smith v. Midland Credit Management, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

S2 Automation LLC v. Micron Technology, Inc.
283 F.R.D. 671 (D. New Mexico, 2012)
United States v. Western Electric Co.
154 F.R.D. 1 (District of Columbia, 1994)