Martha Ruelas v. Target Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 1, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-01648
StatusUnknown

This text of Martha Ruelas v. Target Corporation (Martha Ruelas v. Target 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
Martha Ruelas v. Target Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Heather L. Mills, Esq. (SBN 190950) Diana M. Rivera, Esq. (SBN 222025) 2 SKANE MILLS LLP 3 550 South Hope Street, Suite 410 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071 T: (213) 452-1200 / F: (213) 452-1201 5 drivera@skanemills.com / iyee@skanemills.com 6 Attorneys for Defendant, 7 TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 10

12 M

ARTHA RUELAS, an individual; CASE NO.: 2:25-cv-1648 CV (KSx) [Los Angeles County Superior Court Case

13 25VECV00242] Plaintiff, 14 [Assigned to Hon. Cynthia Valenzuela, 15 v . District Judge; Hon. Karen L. Stevenson, TARGET CORPORATION; a Magistrate Judge] 16 Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE 17 Defendants. ORDER 18 Complaint Filed: January 13, 2025 19 20 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 25 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 26 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 27 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 28 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 1 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 2 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 3 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 4 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5.1 sets forth the 5 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 26(c)(1) states in pertinent part, that 9 the Court, upon a showing of good cause may “issue an order to protect a party from 10 annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 11 26(c)(1). In the instant matter, Defendant Target Corporation’s Confidential 12 Documents contain proprietary and confidential trade secret information relating to 13 Defendant Target Corporation’s business practices, its safety protocol, and 14 surveillance videos. Defendant Target Corporation (“Defendant” or “Target”) 15 derives independent economic value from maintaining the confidentiality of the 16 policies and procedures set forth in these Confidential Documents. 17 Defendant is a retailer and has conducted business in California for over 30 18 years. The retail industry is very competitive. As a result of years of investing time 19 and money in research and investigation, Defendant developed the policies 20 contained in the Confidential Documents for the purposes of maintaining the 21 security of its facilities, providing quality customer service, and ensuring the safety 22 of its employees, customers, and other invitees. These policies and procedures, as 23 memorialized in the Confidential Documents, were created and generated by Target 24 for Target, and are used for the purposes of maintaining safety at its stores and 25 creating efficient and organized work environments for its employees. As a result, 26 Defendant is able to minimize the waste of any resources, which is a key factor in 27 generating profitability for its business. 28 Defendant derives economic value from maintaining the secrecy of its 1 Confidential Documents. If disclosed to the public, the trade secret information 2 contained in Defendant’s Confidential Documents would reveal Defendant’s internal 3 operations and could potentially be used by competitors as a means to compete for 4 its customers, interfere with its business plans and thereby gain unfair business 5 advantages. If Defendant’s safety protocol were revealed to the general public, it 6 would hinder Defendant’s ability to effectively resolve and minimize liability 7 claims, and its goal of protecting its customers and employees from theft and other 8 crimes. Unrestricted or unprotected disclosure of such information would result in 9 prejudice or harm to Defendant by revealing Target’s competitive confidential 10 information, which has been developed at the expense of Target and which 11 represents valuable tangible and intangible assets. Accordingly, the parties 12 respectfully submit that there is good cause for the entry of this Protective Order. 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 “Action” means the above-entitled proceeding with case number 2:25- 15 cv-1648 CV (KSx). 16 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 17 of information or items under this Order. 18 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 19 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 20 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 21 Good Cause Statement. 22 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 23 their support staff). 24 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 25 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 26 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 27 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 28 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 1 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 2 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3 2.7 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 2.8 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 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 10 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 11 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 12 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 13 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 14 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 15 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 16 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 17 support staffs). 18 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 19 Discovery Material in this Action. 20 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 21 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 22 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 23 and their employees and subcontractors. 24 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 25 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 27 from a Producing Party. 28 /// 1 3.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Martha Ruelas v. Target Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martha-ruelas-v-target-corporation-cacd-2025.