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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 13, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-01551
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 11 12 || LISA D. SMITH, Case No. 2:21-cv-01551-PSG-MRWx 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 ORDER 15 Vv. Judge: Hon. Philip S. Gutierrez 16 || MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, 17 || INC., Magistrate Judge: Hon. Michael R. Wilner 18 Defendant. 19 Complaint Filed: February 19, 2021 20 Check if submitted without material 21 modifications to MRW form 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 5 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 6 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 7 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 8 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 9 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 10 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 11 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 12 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 13 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 14 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 15 the court to file material under seal. 16 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 Good cause exists for the parties to enter into this stipulated protective order to 18 prevent the public dissemination of Defendant’s and Non-party credit bureaus 19 confidential business information, and the personal financial information of the 20 Plaintiff. The stipulated protective order is necessary to allow the parties to exchange 21 information for the purposes of this litigation regarding Plaintiff’s claims that 22 Defendant through its exchange of information with the major credit reporting 23 bureaus caused the Plaintiff’s delinquent credit card account to be reported twice on 24 her credit report(s). 25 Parties anticipate that current written discovery and future discovery will 26 involve inquiry into Defendant’s policies and procedures concerning its 27 communications with the major credit reporting bureaus, its own internal compliance 1 Collection Practices Act, and related statutes, its data retentions policies, and other 2 confidential business information. The before mentioned confidential business 3 information is the appropriate subject of a protective order. (See S2 Automation LLC 4 v. Micron Tech., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 681 (D.N.M. 2012) (The disclosure of trade 5 secrets, sensitive commercial information, and information that gives a competitive 6 advantage are proper subjects of a protective order.); Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 7 112, 114 (E.D. Pa. 1994) (The subject matter of confidential business information is 8 broad, including a wide variety of business information.).) If forced to reveal the 9 aforementioned information, Defendant will be subjected to a competitive 10 disadvantage by being forced to reveal its compliance procedures which give it a 11 marked competitive advantage to its competitors as well as other confidential 12 information vital to its operation. Additionally, disclosure may impact its business 13 relationships with each respective major credit reporting agency as it communicates 14 with each individually and confidentially. 15 For the same reasons mentioned above, the protective order is necessary to 16 protect the confidential business information and data of the nonparty credit bureaus 17 in this case which was shared in confidence with Defendant. 18 Additionally, the protective order is necessary to allow for the personal 19 financial information of the Plaintiff to be disclosed and discussed without harm to 20 the Plaintiff. The protection of the personal financial information of a Plaintiff 21 constitutes good cause. (Horowitz v. GC Servs. Ltd. P'ship, No. 14cv2512-MMA 22 RBB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172359, at *9 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2016).) 23 For the forgoing reasons, good cause exists for this protective order. 24 25 2. DEFINITIONS 26 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 2 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 3 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 4 Cause Statement. 5 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 6 support staff). 7 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 8 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 9 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 11 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 12 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 13 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 14 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 15 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 16 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 17 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 18 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 19 counsel. 20 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 21 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 22 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 23 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 24 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 25 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 26 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 27 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 1 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 4 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 6 and their employees and subcontractors. 7 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 8 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 10 from a Producing Party. 11 12 3. SCOPE 13 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 14 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted 15 from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of 16 Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties 17 or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 18 Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial 19 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 20 21 4. DURATION 22 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 23 imposed by this Order will remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise 24 in writing or a court order otherwise directs.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lisa D. Smith v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lisa-d-smith-v-midland-credit-management-inc-cacd-2021.