Michael Laughlin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 17, 2023
Docket8:22-cv-02080
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Laughlin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. (Michael Laughlin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.) 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
Michael Laughlin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 11 MICHAEL LAUGHLIN, Case No. 8:22-cv-02080-FWS-JDE 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. 14 EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., EQUIFAX 15 INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, NCB MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., and 16 JP MORGAN CHASE & Co dba JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 54) and for good cause shown, the Court 21 finds and orders as follows. 22 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 24 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 25 any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties 26 hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 27 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 28 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 1 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 2 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 5 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 6 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 7 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 8 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business 9 or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 10 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information 11 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to 12 the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state 13 or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 14 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality 15 of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 16 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 17 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 18 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 19 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated 20 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 21 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 22 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 23 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 24 PROCEDURE 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 26 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 27 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 28 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under 1 seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 2 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 3 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 4 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 5 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 6 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a 7 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 8 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 9 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 10 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 11 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 12 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 13 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 14 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 15 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 16 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 17 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 18 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 19 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 20 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 21 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 22 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 23 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 24 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 25 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 26 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 4. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action: Laughlin v. Experian Information Solutions, et al., Case No. 3 8:22-cv-02080-CJC-JDE. 4 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 5 designation of information or items under this Order. 6 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 8 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 9 Statement. 10 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 11 their support staff). 12 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 15 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 16 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 17 disclosures or responses to discovery. 18 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 19 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 20 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 21 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 22 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 23 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 24 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 25 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 26 to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have appeared in this 27 Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf 28 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)
Burrell v. Hampshire County
307 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2002)
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)
Michael Laughlin v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-laughlin-v-experian-information-solutions-inc-cacd-2023.