Miguel Gutierrez v. New Hope Harvesting, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 13, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-07077·Unknown

Opinion

1 Marco A. Palau, State Bar No. 242340 Joseph D. Sutton, State Bar No. 269951 2 Eric S. Trabucco, State Bar No. 295473 212 9th Street, Suite 314 4 Oakland, CA 94607 5 Telephone: (510) 269-4200 Facsimile: (310) 268-0790 6 Attorneys for MIGUEL GUTIERREZ 7 Keith A. Fink, Bar No. 146841 8 Sarah E. Hernandez, Bar No. 206305 Rosalyn P. Vasquez, Bar No. 217281 9 KEITH A. FINK & ASSOCIATES 10 1990 Bundy Drive, Suite 620 Los Angeles, California 90024 11 Telephone: (310) 268-0780 12 Facsimile: (310) 268-0790 13 Attorneys for Defendants NEW HOPE HARVESTING, LLC; GUADALUPE GASPAR; EUGENIA GASPAR MARTINEZ; ARACELI GASPAR MARTINEZ 14 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 MIGUEL GUTIERREZ, Case No.: 2:19-cv-07077-FMO-AFM 19 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 20 Plaintiff, ORDER1 vs. 21 22 NEW HOPE HARVESTING, LLC.; GUADALUPE GASPAR; EUGENIA 23 GASPAR MARTINEZ; ARACELI GASPAR GASPAR MARTINEZ; and 24 DOES 1-20; Inclusive, 25 Defendants. 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided 28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting the claims in this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 8 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 9 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 10 applicable legal principles. 11 13 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 14 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 15 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 16 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 17 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 18 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 19 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 20 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 21 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 22 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 23 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 24 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 25 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 26 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 27 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 28 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 1 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 2 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 3 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 4 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 5 record of this case. 6 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 11 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 12 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 13 material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 15 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 16 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 17 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 18 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 19 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 20 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 21 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 22 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 23 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 24 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 25 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 26 protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 28 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 1 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 2 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 3 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 4 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 5 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 6 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 7 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 9 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 11 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 12 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 13 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: Shall mean the above-entitled action, 2:19-cv-07077-FMO- 18 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 19 of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 22 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 23 Cause Statement. 24 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 25 support staff). 26 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 27 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 28 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 2 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 3 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 4 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 7 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 9 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 10 counsel.

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

Miguel Gutierrez v. New Hope Harvesting, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Miguel Gutierrez v. New Hope Harvesting, LLC (Miguel Gutierrez v. New Hope Harvesting, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)