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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 6, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-03430·Unknown

Opinion

TtliAcaRtAa@ J.L LYIlCegAaTl.Ane(tSBN No. 266111) ALEX HADJIAN (SBN 327534) ahadjian@LYlegal.net ALANA OSTROWIECKI (SBN 342304) aostrowiecki@LYlegal.net A Professional Law Corporation 16000 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 783-5757 Fax: (818) 783-7710 Attorneys for Plaintiff Kristel B. Haddad (SBN 273250) Kristel.Haddad@jacksonlewis.com Lilia V. Kavarian (SBN 332935) Lilia.Kavarian@jacksonlewis.com JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 Attorneys for Defendants MESSER LLC; MESSER NORTH AMERICA, INC.; and MARK SORIA, CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-03430-MCS-BFM Plaintiff, [Case Removed from Los Angeles County vs. Superior Court Case No. 25STCV06537] MESSER NORTH AMERICA, INC.; STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE MESSER, LLC; ORDER MESSER NORTH AMERICA; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive Defendants. Complaint Filed: March 7, 2025 Trial: June 9, 2026 l l. 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 pursuing 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. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Good cause exists for the entry of a Protective Order in this matter. Plaintiff asserts claims for age discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and wrongful termination, alleging that he was terminated on December 4, 2023, based on pretextual reasons and replaced with, or treated less favorably than, substantially younger employees. Plaintiff further alleges that other }employee drivers engaged in similar conduct but were not terminated and instead received lesser forms of discipline. By asserting these claims, Plaintiff has placed at issue the conduct, disciplinary history, performance evaluations, ages, seniority, personnel records, and }employment actions relating to third-party comparator employees who are not parties to this litigation. The discovery necessary to evaluate and defend against Plaintiff's allegations will require disclosure of confidential, private, and personnel-related information concerning these non-party employees. This information includes, but is not limited to, personnel files, dates of birth, employment histories, disciplinary records, performance reviews, internal investigations, and other sensitive employment-related data. These third-party employees have not placed their private employment information at issue, and disclosure without appropriate safeguards would compromise their privacy and potentially expose them to unwarranted intrusion.

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

Additionally, the allegations underlying Plaintiff’s claims—namely that Defendants replaced him with younger workers, treated younger employees more favorably, and disciplined other drivers differently—require Defendants to produce comparator evidence that is inherently sensitive. This information is essential to Defendants’ ability to respond to Plaintiff’s claims, demonstrate legitimate nondiscriminatory reasons for the actions taken, and rebut allegations of preferential treatment toward younger workers. However, public disclosure of such records could cause harm to third parties by revealing private employment information, confidential disciplinary outcomes, or sensitive workplace issues unrelated to this lawsuit. 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. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4. DEFINITIONS 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Mark Soria vs. Messer North America, Inc., et al. United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:25-cv- 03430-MCS-BFM. 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 4.3 “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. 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4.6 Disclosure o

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

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

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