Neil Karunatilaka v. Tesla Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 27, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01727·Unknown

Opinion

CAPSTONE LAW APC MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553) David L. Schrader, Bar No. 149638 cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com david.schrader@morganlewis.com Shahin Rezvani (SBN 199614) 300 South Grand Avenue Shahin.Rezvani@capstonelawyers.com Twenty-Second Floor Nathan N. Kiyam (SBN 317677) Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 nate.kiyam@capstonelawyers.com Tel: +1.213.612.2500 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310-556-4811 Mark A. Feller, Bar No. 319789 Facsimile: 310-943-0396 mark.feller@morganlewis.com One Market, Spear Street Tower MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Tel: +1.415.442.1000 Adam A. Edwards (pro hac vice) Fax: +1.415.442.1001 aedwards@milberg.com William A. Ladnier (SBN 330334) Brian M. Ercole (pro hac vice) wladnier@milberg.com briamercole@morganlewis.com Ryan McMillan (pro hac vice) Matthew M. Papkin (pro hac vice) rmcmillan@milberg.com matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com Virginia Whitener (pro hac vice) 600 Brickell Ave, Suite 1600 gwhitener@milberg.com Miami, FL 33131-3075 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Tel: +1.305.415.3000 Knoxville, TN 37931 Fax: +1.305.415.3001 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Katherine A. Vaky Katherine.vaky@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Plaintiff One Oxford Centre, Thirty-Second Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401 Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA NEIL KARUNATILAKA, Case No. 2:24-cv-01727-HDV (RAO) Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED vs. TESLA, INC., d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, DISCOVERY MATTER INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant. This Stipulated Protective Order is entered into by and between Plaintiff Neil Karunatilakaand Defendant Tesla, Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”) (hereinafter, collectively referred to as the “Parties”). The purpose of this Stipulated Protective Order is to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents and information, which may be produced during discovery or otherwise disclosed or provided. In order to protect information which may be made available in the course of discovery in this case, and whose public disclosure may violate laws or regulations and may create a risk of financial harm, competitive harm, or other harm to the parties and third parties, the Parties are entering into this stipulation and requesting that the Court issue a protective order in conformity with the terms set forth herein. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1 Good Cause Statement: The Parties anticipate that certain information disclosed in this action during discovery is likely to include information that is personal or otherwise confidential in nature and related information concerning third parties, non-public financial information, and other proprietary and confidential information of the Parties and third parties for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, trade secrets, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is similar to the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. As set forth in Paragraph 1(d) herein, this Protective Order is intentionally designed to align with the protective orders in related state court proceedings in order to avoid inconsistencies that could create inefficiencies and confusion among the cases. The parties believe a substantially similar protective order among these related cases is appropriate. implicating privacy rights of third parties), personally identifying information, personal financial information, and information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery material, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Subject to the approval of this Court, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows: 1. SCOPE OF PROTECTIVE ORDER (a) The protection of this Protective Order may be invoked with respect to any documents, testimony, declarations, briefs, memoranda, exhibits, answers to interrogatories, answers to requests for admissions and all other information (collectively “Discovery Material”) produced or created by any party or non-party (the “Producing Party”) to any other party or parties (the “Receiving Party”) in connection with the above-captioned action (the “Litigation”). As used herein, the term “Confidential Information or Items” includes testimony, records or other tangible things, including but not limited to discovery responses, whether hardcopy or electronic, that a Designating Party believes is entitled to confidentiality protection under applicable legal and equitable principles. This includes items which a party believes contains or reflects trade secrets, confidential or proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information, and/or private personal, client or customer information. Any Discovery Material produced by any party or non-party as part of this action may be designated by such party or non-party as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” All non-public documents or non- public information obtained through discovery or proceedings in this case, whether or not designated as “Confidential”or “Highly Confidential –Attorneys’Eyes Only” shall be used solely for prosecuting or defending claims in this Litigation, and not for any business, competitive, personal, private, legal, or governmental purpose or function, or any other litigation, and such non-public information shall not be disclosed to anyone except as provided herein. (i) (3) Zaks v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 23CV043575 (Alameda Super. Ct.) (“Zaks”); and (4) Corona v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 24CV64008 (Alameda Super. Ct.) (“Corona”). (ii) The protections conferred by this Protective Order do not cover any item or information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Protective Order. (b) As set forth below, information or materials may be designated as “Confidential”or “Highly Confidential –Attorneys’Eyes Only”if a party has a good faith belief that the item so designated constitutes, reflects or discloses non-public, personal, financial, proprietary or commercial information, trade secrets, or other confidential information and would create a substantial risk of injury if it were disclosed. Such designatio

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

Neil Karunatilaka v. Tesla Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Neil Karunatilaka v. Tesla Inc. (Neil Karunatilaka v. Tesla Inc.) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)