Lucio Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 11, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-00146·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-00146-FLA-AFM Document 40 Filed 10/11/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:556

Candace Bertoldi (SBN 254725) cbertoldi@seyfarth.com 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, California 90017-5793 Telephone: (213) 270-9600 Facsimile: (213) 270-9601 Elizabeth J. MacGregor (SBN 267326) emacgregor@seyfarth.com Robin E. Devaux (SBN 233444) rdevaux@seyfarth.com 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 Attorneys for Defendant OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER

Matthew J. Matern (SBN 159798) mmatern@maternlawgroup.com Scott A. Brooks (SBN 160115) sbrooks@maternlawgroup.com 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200 Manhattan Beach, Caliornia 90266 Telephone: (310) 531-1900 Facsimile: (310) 531-1901

Attorneys for Plaintiff LUCIO LEMUS, individually, and on Case No. 2:21-CV-00146-FLA-AFM behalf of others similarly situated;, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ORDER v. OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS CONTAINER, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants.

87861727v.2 Case 2:21-cv-00146-FLA-AFM Document 40 Filed 10/11/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:557

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Lucio Lemus Jr. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, “the parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, that the following Protective Order be entered in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure. Certificate of Conference: Pursuant to Judge MacKinnon’s Order dated October 7, 2022 (Dkt. 37) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), the Parties certify that they have conferred in good faith in crafting this Stipulated Protective Order so that it is narrowly tailored to the issues present in this action. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)G), the parties also certify and they agree that information protected by third-party privacy rights and trade secret of other confidential research, development, financial or commercial documents and information be reveal only in the specific ways detailed in this Protective Order. 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS1 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 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. 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon’s Procedures. A “redline” or “compare” version showing changes between the model protective order and this Order have been submitted electronically to the Judge MacKinnon’s Chambers according to the Judge’s online procedures. 2 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 87861727v.2 Case 2:21-cv-00146-FLA-AFM Document 40 Filed 10/11/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:558

In this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover penalties pursuant to the California Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) on behalf of allegedly aggrieved non-exempt employees who worked for Defendant in California between November 13, 2019, and the present. Plaintiff also asserts individual claims for various violations under the Labor Code against Defendant originally brought by his deceased father and former named plaintiff Lucio Lemus Sr. Plaintiff has propounded written discovery on Defendant, seeking confidential information pertaining to the absent aggrieved employees’ wages, contact information, and employment records. Moreover, Plaintiff has sought or will seek valuable commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information, 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. This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 87861727v.2 Case 2:21-cv-00146-FLA-AFM Document 40 Filed 10/11/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:559

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

Lucio Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Lucio Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc. (Lucio Lemus v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, 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)
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)