Liyila Marinova v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 4, 2023
Docket8:22-cv-01453
StatusUnknown

This text of Liyila Marinova v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (Liyila Marinova v. Mazda Motor of America, 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
Liyila Marinova v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2

3 4

5 6

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 LIYILA MARINOVA, individually Case No. 8:22-cv-01453-FWS (JDEx) 11 and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ORDER 13

vs. 14

MAZDA MOTOR OF AMERICA, 15 INC, and DOES 1 through 10,

16 Defendants.

17 18 19 Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 39), and for good cause shown, the 20 Court finds and orders as follows. 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 25 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 26 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 27 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 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 trade secrets and other valuable research, 5 development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for 6 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 7 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 8 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential submissions to 9 the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”) regarding regulatory compliance, and 10 other technical issues. The automotive industry is highly competitive, and these 11 submissions are routinely kept confidential by automotive companies and by CARB 12 (at the companies’ request) to prevent competitive disadvantage. Other examples of 13 confidential and proprietary information include confidential business or financial 14 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 15 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 16 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 17 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 18 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 19 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 20 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 21 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 22 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 23 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 24 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 25 justified in this matter. The parties intend that information will not be designated as 26 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 27 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 5 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 6 to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 12 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 13 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 14 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 15 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 16 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 17 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 18 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 19 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 22 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 23 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 24 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 25 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 26 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 27 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 3 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 4 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 5 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 6 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 9 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 10 of information or items under this Order. 11 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 12 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 13 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 14 the Good Cause Statement. 15 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 16 their support staff). 17 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 18 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 19 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 21 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 22 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 23 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 24 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 25 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 26 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 27 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 1 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 4 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 5 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 6 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Liyila Marinova v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liyila-marinova-v-mazda-motor-of-america-inc-cacd-2023.