Mark Soria v. Licata & Yeremenko, A Professional Law Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 6, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-03430
StatusUnknown

This text of Mark Soria v. Licata & Yeremenko, A Professional Law Corporation (Mark Soria v. Licata & Yeremenko, A Professional Law Corporation) 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
Mark Soria v. Licata & Yeremenko, A Professional Law Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 TtliAcaRtAa@ J.L LYIlCegAaTl.Ane(tSBN No. 266111) 2 ALEX HADJIAN (SBN 327534) ahadjian@LYlegal.net 3 ALANA OSTROWIECKI (SBN 342304) aostrowiecki@LYlegal.net 4 LICATA & YEREMENKO A Professional Law Corporation 5 16000 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800 Encino, CA 91436 6 Telephone: (818) 783-5757 Fax: (818) 783-7710 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 MARK SORIA 9 Kristel B. Haddad (SBN 273250) 10 Kristel.Haddad@jacksonlewis.com Lilia V. Kavarian (SBN 332935) 11 Lilia.Kavarian@jacksonlewis.com JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 12 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017-5408 13 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 14 Attorneys for Defendants 15 MESSER LLC; MESSER NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and 16 MESSER NORTH AMERICA 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 MARK SORIA, CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-03430-MCS-BFM 20 Plaintiff, 21 [Case Removed from Los Angeles County vs. Superior Court Case No. 25STCV06537] 22 MESSER NORTH AMERICA, INC.; STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE 23 MESSER, LLC; ORDER MESSER NORTH AMERICA; and 24 DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive 25 Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 7, 2025 Trial: June 9, 2026 26 27 28 l l. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 3 || or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 4 || any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 5 || hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 6 ||The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 7 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 8 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 9 || confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 Good cause exists for the entry of a Protective Order in this matter. Plaintiff asserts 12 claims for age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination, alleging that 13 || he was terminated on December 4, 2023, based on pretextual reasons and replaced with, or 14 || treated less favorably than, substantially younger employees. Plaintiff further alleges that other 15 ||}employee drivers engaged in similar conduct but were not terminated and instead received 16 || lesser forms of discipline. By asserting these claims, Plaintiff has placed at issue the conduct, 17 disciplinary history, performance evaluations, ages, seniority, personnel records, and 18 |}employment actions relating to third-party comparator employees who are not parties to this 19 || litigation. 20 The discovery necessary to evaluate and defend against Plaintiff's allegations will 21 || require disclosure of confidential, private, and personnel-related information concerning these 22 ||non-party employees. This information includes, but is not limited to, personnel files, dates of 23 ||birth, employment histories, disciplinary records, performance reviews, internal 24 || investigations, and other sensitive employment-related data. These third-party employees have 25 || not placed their private employment information at issue, and disclosure without appropriate 26 ||safeguards would compromise their privacy and potentially expose them to unwarranted 27 intrusion. 28

Case No 2 95-cev3420-MCS_BEM. OR TTIDITT ATTIARN ARID DDATECTIVEARPRED. OOOO

1 Additionally, the allegations underlying Plaintiff’s claims—namely that Defendants 2 replaced him with younger workers, treated younger employees more favorably, and 3 disciplined other drivers differently—require Defendants to produce comparator evidence that 4 is inherently sensitive. This information is essential to Defendants’ ability to respond to 5 Plaintiff’s claims, demonstrate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions taken, and 6 rebut allegations of preferential treatment toward younger workers. However, public 7 disclosure of such records could cause harm to third parties by revealing private employment 8 information, confidential disciplinary outcomes, or sensitive workplace issues unrelated to this 9 lawsuit. 10 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 11 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 12 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 13 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 14 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 15 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not 16 be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without 17 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 18 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 19 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 20 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Stipulated 21 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 22 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 23 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 24 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil 25 cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a 26 filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th 27 Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 28 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 1 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 2 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 3 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 4 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission 5 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 6 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 7 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 8 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 9 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 10 Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, 11 or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 12 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 13 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 14 under seal must be provided by declaration. 15 4. DEFINITIONS 16 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Mark Soria vs. Messer North America, Inc., 17 et al. United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv- 18 03430-MCS-BFM. 19 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 20 of information or items under this Order.

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)
Mark Soria v. Licata & Yeremenko, A Professional Law Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mark-soria-v-licata-yeremenko-a-professional-law-corporation-cacd-2026.