Lorenzo Rivera v. Marriott International, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 2, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-05050·Unknown

Opinion

Kevin Mahoney (SBN: 235367) kmahoney@mahoney-law.net 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 Telephone: (562) 590-5550/ Facsimile: (562) 590-8400

Attorneys for Plaintiff LORENZO RIVERA, as an individual and on behalf of all aggrieved employees (Additional Counsel listed on next page)

A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations GREG S. LABATE, Cal. Bar No. 149918 glabate@sheppardmullin.com 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 714.513.5130

Counsel for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LORENZO RIVERA, Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS Hon. Otis D. Wright II, Courtroom 5D Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Action filed: April 24, 2019 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

Defendant.

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson’s Procedures. Janelle Carney (Bar No. 201570) 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Telephone: (909) 521-9609/ Facsimile: (909) 393-0471 E-mail: janelle@janellecarneylaw.com Counsel for Plaintiff

SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations HILARY A. HABIB, Cal. Bar No. 293431 hhabib@sheppardmullin.com BRYANNE J. LEWIS, Cal. Bar No. 311763 blewis@sheppardmullin.com 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 Telephone: 213.620.1780 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Attorneys for Defendants and MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC. 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. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve the exchange of non-publicly available documents of a sensitive, confidential, and/or proprietary nature, including financial, technical, and internal security information, and private information concerning Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (“Marriott”) current and former employees. Special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted for these documents. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, personal information regarding Marriott’s current and former hourly, non-exempt employees at its Marina Del Rey location (including but not limited to, personnel records, compensation, home addresses, home telephone numbers, and personal email addresses), information regarding Marriott’s policies and procedures, and information 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. Accordingly, 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. 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. C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 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 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. 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 & 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 or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 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, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: The above-entitled pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible items that contain corporate trade secrets, nonpublic research and development data, pricing formulas, prospective inventory management programs, confidential business information not generally known to the general public, and customer-related information. 2.3 Challenging Party: A party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.4 “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 specifi

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

Lorenzo Rivera v. Marriott International, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Lorenzo Rivera v. Marriott International, Inc. (Lorenzo Rivera v. Marriott International, 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)