Mohammed Elokour v. Safety Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Sambasafety

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 19, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-09640
StatusUnknown

This text of Mohammed Elokour v. Safety Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Sambasafety (Mohammed Elokour v. Safety Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Sambasafety) 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
Mohammed Elokour v. Safety Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Sambasafety, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4

5 Case No. 2:25-cv-09640-JFW-SSC 6 MOHAMMED ELOKOUR,

7 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 8 v. ORDER1

10 SAFETY HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a 11 SAMBASAFETY, 12 Defendant

13 14 1. INTRODUCTION 15 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 16 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 17 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 18 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 19 petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 20 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 21 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 22 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 23 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 24 25

26 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order 27 provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen’s Procedures as of 24 July 1 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 3 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 4 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 5 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 6 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 7 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 8 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 9 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 10 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 11 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 12 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 13 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 14 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 15 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 16 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 17 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 18 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 19 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 20 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 21 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 22 case. 23 Plaintiff believes if his full personal identifying information is made available 24 on the public docket he will be susceptible to identity theft. As such, all filings should 25 be made in compliance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 in order to protect Plaintiff’s personal 26 identifying information. To the extent that there is medical information that is 27 compelled in this lawsuit, the medical examination documents shall also be marked 1 as confidential. See Pate v. Pac. Harbor Line, Inc., No. 5:21-cv-01300-JWH-SHK, 2 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52632, *37-38 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2023) (stating that Plaintiff 3 has a strong privacy interest in hismedical records); Tucson Woman's Clinic v. Eden, 4 379 F.3d 531, 551 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Individuals have a constitutionally protected 5 interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, including medical information.”); 6 Norman Bloodsaw v. Lawrence Berkeley Lab’y, 135 F.3d 1260, 1269 (9th Cir. 1998) 7 (“The constitutionally protected privacy interest in avoiding disclosure of personal 8 matters clearly encompasses medical information and its confidentiality.”); 9 Miesegaes v. Allenby, No. CV 15-01574 CJC (RAO), 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89806, 10 2020 WL 2542064, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2020) (In the discovery context, “[t]he 11 Court recognizes the significant privacy interest in medical records.”). 12 13 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties 14 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 15 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79- 16 5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 17 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 18 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 19 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 20 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 21 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd 22 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 23 Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 24 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 25 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 26 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 27 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 1 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 2 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 3 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 4 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 5 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 6 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 7 See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 8 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 9 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 10 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 11 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 12 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 13 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 14 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 15 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 16 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 17 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 18 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 19 20 2. DEFINITIONS 21 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 22 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 23 of information or items under this Order. 24 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 25 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 26 under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in 27 the Good Cause Statement. 1 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 2 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mohammed Elokour v. Safety Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Sambasafety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mohammed-elokour-v-safety-holdings-inc-dba-sambasafety-cacd-2025.