Loui v. Gideon Contracting, LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 1, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-00189·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JANAI LOUI, Case No. 1:23-cv-00189-JLT-SAB Plaintiff, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED NON- TRIAL CIVIL PROTECTIVE ORDER v. GIDEON CONTRACTING, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 28) Defendants. IS IT HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff JANAI LOUI (“Plaintiff”); Defendant GIDEON CONTRACTING, LLC (“Defendant Gideon”); and Defendant WILLIS DANIEL TYSON (“Defendant Tyson”), by and through their respective counsel of record, that the nature of the above-referenced employment action makes it likely that discoverable information will include information entitled to confidentiality and privacy protections under applicable substantive laws, and in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents in discovery, the Parties agree and stipulate as follows pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1: EASTERN DISTRICT LOCAL RULE 141.1(c) COMPLIANCE Information eligible for protection under the proposed Non-Trial Civil Protective Order (“Order”), and the particularized need for the same are described in Paragraph 2.2 of the Order. The varied nature of discoverable documents, which include information subject to third-party privacy rights, privileged communications, Plaintiff’s medical records, Defendant Gideon’s internal policies and practices, Defendant Gideon’s employees’ information, Defendant Gideon’s contracts and communications, and potentially proprietary information, renders any private agreement inadequate and private enforcement unduly burdensome and ineffective under California law. Potential damages from any private agreement breach could significantly vary depending on the records disclosed and third-partes impacted. This variance may render a liquidated damages provision included in such a private agreement an unenforceable unlawful penalty, ultimately requiring the Parties to any such agreement to individually litigate the consequential damages of every breach. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1671(b); Ridgley v. Topa Thrify & Loan Assoc., 17 Cal.4th 970, 976-78 (1998) (The amount set as liquidated damages “must represent the result of a reasonable endeavor by the parties to estimate a fair average compensation for any loss that may be sustained” or else it is unenforceable penalty). Enforcement of confidentiality protections by Court Order implicates the professional responsibility of counsel for all Parties and provides a bulwark against unauthorized disclosure that cannot be adequately ameliorated by threat of civil litigation and monetary damages alone. / / / 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, and 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. 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 Rule 141 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “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), including employment records, private information concerning third-parties, medical records, and correspondence and personal records (including financial records) implicating privacy and third-party privacy interests protected by the California and U.S. Constitutions and applicable California decisional authority. 2.3 Counsel: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and their staff. 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.8 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.9 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.10 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, electronic discovery support, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.11 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.12 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees in writing or a court order directs otherwise. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, appeals, or reviews of this action, including the time lim

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

Loui v. Gideon Contracting, LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Loui v. Gideon Contracting, LLC (Loui v. Gideon Contracting, LLC) — 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)
Ridgley v. Topa Thrift & Loan Assn.
953 P.2d 484 (California Supreme Court, 1998)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)