Lori Johnson v. Walmart Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 19, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-08662
StatusUnknown

This text of Lori Johnson v. Walmart Inc. (Lori Johnson v. Walmart 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
Lori Johnson v. Walmart Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-08662-ODW-GJS Document 25 Filed 04/19/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:568

8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 LORI JOHNSON, an Individual, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:21−cv−08662 ODW (GJSx) 12 v.

13 AMENDED STIPULATED WALMART, INC., a Delaware PROTECTIVE ORDER1 14 corporation; DAVID, an individual; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16

17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 26 under the applicable legal principles. 27

28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. 1 Case 2:21-cv-08662-ODW-GJS Document 25 Filed 04/19/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:569

1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 3 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 4 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 5 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 6 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 7 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 8 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 9 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 10 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 11 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 12 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 13 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 14 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 15 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 16 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 17 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 18 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 19 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 20 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 21 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 22 of the public record of this case. 23 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 24 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 25 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 26 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 27 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 28 the court to file material under seal. 2 Case 2:21-cv-08662-ODW-GJS Document 25 Filed 04/19/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:570

1 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 2 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 3 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 4 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 5 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 6 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 7 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 8 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 9 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 10 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 11 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 12 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 13 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 15 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 16 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 17 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 18 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 19 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 20 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 21 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 22 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 23 declaration. 24 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 25 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 26 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 27 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 28 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 3 Case 2:21-cv-08662-ODW-GJS Document 25 Filed 04/19/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:571

1 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 10 the Good Cause Statement. 11 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 their support staff). 13 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 19 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 22 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Lori Johnson v. Walmart Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lori-johnson-v-walmart-inc-cacd-2022.