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) 1 kmahoney@mahoney-law.net 2 MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC 3 249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814 Long Beach, CA 90802 4 Telephone: (562) 590-5550/ Facsimile: (562) 590-8400

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff LORENZO RIVERA, as an individual and on behalf of all aggrieved employees (Additional Counsel listed on next page) 6

7 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership 8 Including Professional Corporations GREG S. LABATE, Cal. Bar No. 149918 9 glabate@sheppardmullin.com 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor 10 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1993 Telephone: 714.513.5100 11 Facsimile: 714.513.5130

12 Counsel for Defendant

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 LORENZO RIVERA, Case No. 2:19-cv-05050-ODW-KS 16 Hon. Otis D. Wright II, Courtroom 5D Plaintiff, 17 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 v. 18 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. Action filed: April 24, 2019 19 and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

20 Defendant. 21 22

26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order 28 provided under Magistrate Judge Karen L. Stevenson’s Procedures. Janelle Carney (Bar No. 201570) 1 JANELLE CARNEY-ATTORNEY AT LAW, APC 14758 Pipeline Ave., Suite E 2 Chino Hills, CA 91709-6025 Telephone: (909) 521-9609/ Facsimile: (909) 393-0471 3 E-mail: janelle@janellecarneylaw.com 4 Counsel for Plaintiff

5 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 6 A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations 7 HILARY A. HABIB, Cal. Bar No. 293431 hhabib@sheppardmullin.com 8 BRYANNE J. LEWIS, Cal. Bar No. 311763 blewis@sheppardmullin.com 9 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 10 Telephone: 213.620.1780 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 11 Attorneys for Defendants 12 MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC. and MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve the exchange of non-publicly available 13 documents of a sensitive, confidential, and/or proprietary nature, including 14 financial, technical, and internal security information, and private information 15 concerning Marriott Hotel Services, Inc. (“Marriott”) current and former 16 employees. Special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 17 18 other than prosecution of this action is warranted for these documents. Such 19 confidential and proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other 20 things, confidential business or financial information, personal information 21 regarding Marriott’s current and former hourly, non-exempt employees at its 22 Marina Del Rey location (including but not limited to, personnel records, 23 compensation, home addresses, home telephone numbers, and personal email 24 addresses), information regarding Marriott’s policies and procedures, and 25 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 26 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 27 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 28 1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 3 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 5 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 6 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 7 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 8 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 9 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 10 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 12 SEAL 13 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 14 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 15 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 16 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 17 18 to file material under seal. 19 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 20 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 21 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City & 22 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 23 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 24 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 25 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 26 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 27 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 28 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or 1 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the submission of competent 2 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 3 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 4 cause. 5 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 6 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 7 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 8 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 9 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 10 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 11 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 12 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 13 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 14 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 15 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 16 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 17 18 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 19 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 20 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 21 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Action: The above-entitled pending federal lawsuit.

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)