Miguel Gutierrez v. New Hope Harvesting, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 21, 2021·No. 2:19-cv-07077·Unknown

Opinion

1 Rafael Gonzalez, SBN 210202 Brian T. Daly, SBN 298731 112 East Victoria Street 3 Post Office Drawer 789 Santa Barbara, CA 93102-0789 4 Telephone: (805) 966-1501 Facsimile: (805) 966-9204 5 Attorneys for Defendant

11 MIGUEL GUTIERREZ, ) Case No. 2:19-cv-07077-FMO-AFM ) 12 Plaintiffs, ) ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 v. ) ORDER1 ) 14 NEW HOPE HARVESTING, LLC; ) GUADALUPE GASPAR; ) 15 EUGENIA GASPAR MARTINEZ; ) ARACELI GASPAR GASPAR ) 16 MARTINEZ; and JDB PRO, INC. ) d/b/a CENTRAL WEST ) 17 PRODUCE, Inclusive, ) ) 18 Defendants. ) 19 20 The parties to the above-captioned action hereby request that the Court 21 approve this amended Stipulated Protective Order. The Stipulated Protective 22 Order currently in place (approved by the Court on April 13, 2020) does not 23 include Defendant JDB Pro, Inc. as a signatory. Other than this paragraph and 24 the signature blocks below, this amended Stipulated Protective Order (which is 25 based on the model order) is substantively identical to the order previously 26 approved by the Court on April 13, 2020. 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model 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 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 5 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 6 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 9 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 10 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 13 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 15 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of 20 third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 21 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 22 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 23 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 24 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 25 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 26 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct 27 of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 1 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 2 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that 3 it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 4 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 8 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 9 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 10 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 11 from the court to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to 13 judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 14 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 15 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 16 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 17 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 18 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing 19 of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 20 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 21 to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 22 Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent 23 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 24 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute 25 good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 1 protected. 2 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 3 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 4 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 5 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 6 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 7 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 8 declaration. 9 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 10 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 11 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 12 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 13 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 14 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 15 redaction is not feasible. 16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Action: Shall mean the above-entitled action, 2:19-cv-07077-FMO- 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 20 designation of information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL”: Information or Items: information (regardless 22 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 23 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 24 the Good Cause Statement. 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 26 their support staff). 27 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 1 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 3 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 4 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 5 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in 6 this matter. 7 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 8 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel 9 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 10 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 11 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 12 outside counsel. 13 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association 14 or 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

Miguel Gutierrez v. New Hope Harvesting, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

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)