Manuel Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 6, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-06963·Unknown

Opinion

Joshua Cohen Slatkin (SBN 285090) LAW OFFICE OF JOSHUA COHEN SLATKIN 11726 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 200 Los Angeles, CA 90049 Telephone: (310)627-2699 Facsimile: (310) 943-2757 Email: jcohenslatkin @jcslaw4you.com Arnab Banerjee (SBN 252618) BANNER LAW GROUP, P.C. 11755 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1250 Los Angeles, California 90025 Email: Arnab@bannerlawgroup.com Telephone: (323) 426-2991 Facsimile: (323) 426-2975 Attorneys for Plaintiff MANUEL ANDRADE KARIN M. COGBILL, Bar No. 244606 kcogbill@ hopkinscarley.com HOPKINS & CARLEY A Law Corporation The Letitia Building 70 S First Street San Jose, CA 95113-2406 mailing address: P.O. Box 1469 San Jose, CA 95109-1469 Telephone: (408) 286-9800 Facsimile: (408) 998-4790 Attorneys for Defendants BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC.; BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MANUEL ANDRADE, on behalf of Case No. 2:19-cv-06963-CJC (RAOx) himself and all others similarly situated, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER Vv. 2) BEACON SALES ACQUISITION, INC.; BEACON ROOFING SUPPLY, INC.; and gd. DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Complaint filed: March 26, 2019 Defendants. Case No. 2:19-cv-06963-CJC (RAOx)

1] 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 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. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Paragraph 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 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. This action involves allegations that third party employees were subjected to various Labor Code violations. The claims implicate potentially confidential information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 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. 2. DEFINITIONS at 1. Case No. 2:19-cv-06963-CJC (RAOx)

2.1 Action: Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., et al., pending in the Central District of California, Case No. 2:19-cv-06963-CJC (RAOx). 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “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 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 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. 2.7. 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. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Qutside Counsel of Record: 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 includes support staff. 2.11 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). at 2. Case No. 2:19-cv-06963-CJC (RAOx)

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

Manuel Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Manuel Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc. (Manuel Andrade v. Beacon Sales Acquisition, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)