Melissa Magana v. Zara USA, Inc., a New York Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 27, 2021·No. 8:18-cv-02249-DOC-ADS·Unknown

Opinion

Armond M. Jackson, SBN 281547 ajackson@jacksonapc.com Andrea M. Fernandez-Jackson, SBN 295924 afernandez@jacksonapc.com A Professional Law Corporation 2 Venture Plaza, Ste. 240 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 281-6857 Facsimile: (949) 777-6218 Attorneys for Plaintiff MELISSA MAGANA CONTACT INFORMATION FOR COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT IS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MELISSA MAGANA, as an individual Case No.: 8:18-cv-02249-DOC (ADSx) and on behalf of others similarly Assigned for all purposes to: David O. situated, Carter Plaintiff, JOINTLY STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER: v. ORDER ZARA USA, INC., a New York corporation, MASSIMO DUTTI USA, Action Filed: March 29, 2018 INC., a New York corporation and Removal Date: September 10, 2018 DOES 1-50, inclusive, Trial Date: March 29, 2022 Defendant. A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations ADAM R. ROSENTHAL, Cal. Bar No. 246722 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200 San Diego, California 92130-2006 Telephone: 650.815.2600 Facsimile: 650.815.2601 Email: aronsenthal@sheppardmullin.com TYLER J. JOHNSON, Cal. Bar No. 307386 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 Telephone: 213.620.1780 Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Email: tjjohnson@sheppardmullin.com AMANDA E. BECKWITH, Cal. Bar No. 312967 Four Embarcadero Center, 17rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4109 Telephone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email: abeckwith@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Defendant ZARA USA, INC. ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: In order to facilitate discovery in the above-captioned matter, Plaintiff Melissa Magana and Defendant Zara USA, Inc. (collectively, “the parties”) hereby agree to the following Jointly Stipulated Protective Order concerning the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL treatment of certain documents and information. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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 prosecuting 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. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 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. Where the Court orders documents to be filed under seal, the Stipulated Protective Order shall be deemed to automatically apply to all documents sealed by order of the Court. 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. Good cause exists for a Protective Order because both Plaintiff’s and Defendant’s document productions will disclose information relating to (1) the trade secrets and confidential business practices of Defendant, which Defendant safeguards as a means to ensure competitiveness in their industry; and (2) employee’s personal and confidential information. See Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617, 623 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (identifying privacy interests, among others when considering existence of good cause); Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 554 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing trade secrets and confidential business information as legitimate categories of information subject to protection). 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “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). This may include, without limitation and without either party conceding that any particular Protected Material is properly designated as such, information regarding Defendant’s business practices and employee financial and personal documents. 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL– ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: information that the Producing Party claims in good faith is highly confidential or sensitive, including technical information, pricing and revenue information and other sensitive financial data, and the disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.11 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL— ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure

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

Melissa Magana v. Zara USA, Inc., a New York Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Melissa Magana v. Zara USA, Inc., a New York Corporation (Melissa Magana v. Zara USA, Inc., a New York Corporation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi & Co.
242 F.R.D. 1 (District of Columbia, 2007)