Marko Mandaric, Kahlie Mandaric v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., dba Chase Auto Finance; Doe 1 Repossession Agency; Doe 2 Tow Operator; and Does 3-15

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 8, 2026
Docket8:25-cv-02321
StatusUnknown

This text of Marko Mandaric, Kahlie Mandaric v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., dba Chase Auto Finance; Doe 1 Repossession Agency; Doe 2 Tow Operator; and Does 3-15 (Marko Mandaric, Kahlie Mandaric v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., dba Chase Auto Finance; Doe 1 Repossession Agency; Doe 2 Tow Operator; and Does 3-15) 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
Marko Mandaric, Kahlie Mandaric v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., dba Chase Auto Finance; Doe 1 Repossession Agency; Doe 2 Tow Operator; and Does 3-15, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MARKO MANDARIC, KAHLIE ) Case No. 8:25-cv-02321-FWS-JDE MANDARIC, ) 12 ) Plaintiffs, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER ) v. 14 ) JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., dba ) 15 CHASE AUTO FINANCE; DOE 1 ) 16 REPOSSESSION AGENCY; DOE 2 ) TOW OPERATOR; and DOES 3-15, ) 17 ) Defendants. ) 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Based on the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 25) and for good cause shown, the 2 Court finds and orders as follows. 3 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 5 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 6 and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 7 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 8 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 9 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 10 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 11 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 12 legal principles. 13 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer, banking, credit and 15 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 16 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 17 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 18 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 19 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 20 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 21 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 22 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 23 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 24 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 25 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 26 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 27 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 28 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 1 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 2 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 3 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 4 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 5 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 6 record of this case. 7 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 10 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 11 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 12 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of 13 access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 14 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 15 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 16 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 17 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 18 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 19 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 20 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 21 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 22 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 23 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 24 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 25 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 26 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 27 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 28 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 1 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 2 under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 3 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 4 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 5 must be provided by declaration. 6 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 7 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 8 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 9 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 10 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 11 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 12 4. DEFINITIONS 13 4.1 Action: Marko Mandaric v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, et al., U.S. District 14 Court of California – Central District, Case No. 8-25-cv-02321-FWS-JDE. 15 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 16 of information or items under this Order. 17 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 18 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 20 Good Cause Statement. 21 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 22 their support staff). 23 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 24 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 25 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 27 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 28 1 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 2 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 3 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 4 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 5 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 6 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 7 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 8 counsel. 9 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 10 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 11 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 12 to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have appeared 13 in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 14 appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marko Mandaric, Kahlie Mandaric v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., dba Chase Auto Finance; Doe 1 Repossession Agency; Doe 2 Tow Operator; and Does 3-15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marko-mandaric-kahlie-mandaric-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-dba-chase-cacd-2026.