Margarita Munoz v. Nissan North America, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 22, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00532
StatusUnknown

This text of Margarita Munoz v. Nissan North America, Inc. (Margarita Munoz v. Nissan North America, 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
Margarita Munoz v. Nissan North America, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MARGARITA MUNOZ, an Case No.: 8:23-cv-00532-FWS-JDE 11 individual, and FRANCISCO 12 MUNOZ, an individual, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 Plaintiffs, 14 vs.

15 NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., 16 a Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 17

18 Defendants. 19 20 Based on the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 22) and for good cause shown, the 21 Court finds and orders as follows. 22 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 25 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 26 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 27 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 1 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 2 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 3 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 4 in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 5 file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 6 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 7 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 8 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and the parties’ 10 representations that discovery in this case will involve the production of confidential 11 records, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 12 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 13 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 14 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with 15 this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and 16 to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 17 matter. The parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential 18 without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained 19 in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling 20 reason why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 21 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 22 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 23 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 24 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 25 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 26 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 27 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 1 must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 2 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 3 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 4 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 5 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 6 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made 7 with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 8 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 9 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence 10 by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 11 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 12 cause. 13 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 14 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 15 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 16 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 17 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be 18 filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 19 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 20 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 21 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 23 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 24 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for 25 public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise 26 protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks 27 to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 1 4. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action: The pending federal lawsuit entitled Margarita Munoz and 3 Francisco Munoz v. Nissan North America, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00532-FWS- 4 JDE. 5 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 4.3 “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 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 their support staff). 13 4.5 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 4.6 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 or 19 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 4.7 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 4.8 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 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 1 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 2 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 3 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 4 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 5 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 6 support staffs). 7 4.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 8 Discovery Material in this Action. 9 4.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 10 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 11 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 12 and their employees and subcontractors.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Margarita Munoz v. Nissan North America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/margarita-munoz-v-nissan-north-america-inc-cacd-2023.