Michelle Finn v. Loandepot.com LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 20, 2023
Docket8:23-cv-00737
StatusUnknown

This text of Michelle Finn v. Loandepot.com LLC (Michelle Finn v. Loandepot.com LLC) 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
Michelle Finn v. Loandepot.com LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 . 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 MICHELLE FINN, individually and on Case No. 8:23-cv-00737-FWS-JDE behalf of all other similarly situated, 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC., 16 Defendant. Action filed: April 28, 2023 17 18 Pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 30) and for good cause shown, the 19 20 Court finds and orders as follows. 21 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 23 24 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 25 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 26 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 27 1 The parties acknowledge that this Agreement does not confer blanket protections on 2 all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 3 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 4 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 5 6 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 7 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 8 9 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 10 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 11 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. For example, 12 13 this action involves consumer contact information and personal identifying 14 information of the putative class. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 15 information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 16 17 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 18 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 19 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 20 21 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 22 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 23 or common law. To expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 24 25 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 26 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 27 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 1 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 2 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 3 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 4 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 5 6 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 7 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 8 9 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 11 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 12 13 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 14 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 15 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 16 17 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 18 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 19 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 20 21 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 22 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 23 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 24 25 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 26 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 27 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 1 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 2 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 3 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if 4 a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 5 6 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought 7 shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. 8 9 Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or 10 type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, 11 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by 12 13 specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 14 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be 15 provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or 16 17 otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 18 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for 19 public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 20 21 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 22 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 23 redaction is not feasible. 24 25 4. DEFINITIONS 26 4.1 Action: Michelle Finn, et al v. loanDepot.com, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv- 27 00737-FWS-JDE. 1 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 2 of information or items under this Order. 3 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 4 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 5 6 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 7 the Good Cause Statement. 8 9 4.4 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House 10 Counsel (as well as their support staff). 11 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 12 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 16 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 19 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 21 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 23 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 24 25 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. 26 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 27 counsel. 1 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
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)
Michelle Finn v. Loandepot.com LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michelle-finn-v-loandepotcom-llc-cacd-2023.