Neil Karunatilaka v. Tesla Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 27, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01727
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 CAPSTONE LAW APC MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Cody R. Padgett (SBN 275553) David L. Schrader, Bar No. 149638 2 cody.padgett@capstonelawyers.com david.schrader@morganlewis.com Shahin Rezvani (SBN 199614) 300 South Grand Avenue 3 Shahin.Rezvani@capstonelawyers.com Twenty-Second Floor Nathan N. Kiyam (SBN 317677) Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132 4 nate.kiyam@capstonelawyers.com Tel: +1.213.612.2500 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Fax: +1.213.612.2501 5 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: 310-556-4811 Mark A. Feller, Bar No. 319789 6 Facsimile: 310-943-0396 mark.feller@morganlewis.com One Market, Spear Street Tower 7 MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON San Francisco, CA 94105-1126 PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC Tel: +1.415.442.1000 8 Adam A. Edwards (pro hac vice) Fax: +1.415.442.1001 aedwards@milberg.com 9 William A. Ladnier (SBN 330334) Brian M. Ercole (pro hac vice) wladnier@milberg.com briamercole@morganlewis.com 10 Ryan McMillan (pro hac vice) Matthew M. Papkin (pro hac vice) rmcmillan@milberg.com matthew.papkin@morganlewis.com 11 Virginia Whitener (pro hac vice) 600 Brickell Ave, Suite 1600 gwhitener@milberg.com Miami, FL 33131-3075 12 800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100 Tel: +1.305.415.3000 Knoxville, TN 37931 Fax: +1.305.415.3001 13 Telephone: (865) 247-0080 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Katherine A. Vaky 14 Katherine.vaky@morganlewis.com Attorneys for Plaintiff One Oxford Centre, Thirty-Second Floor 15 Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401 16 Attorneys for Defendant Tesla, Inc. 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 20 NEIL KARUNATILAKA, Case No. 2:24-cv-01727-HDV (RAO) 21 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 22 PROTECTIVE ORDER vs. 23 TESLA, INC., d/b/a TESLA MOTORS, DISCOVERY MATTER 24 INC., a Delaware Corporation, 25 Defendant. 26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is entered into by and between Plaintiff Neil 2 Karunatilakaand Defendant Tesla, Inc. dba Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”) (hereinafter, 3 collectively referred to as the “Parties”). The purpose of this Stipulated Protective 4 Order is to preserve the confidentiality of certain documents and information, which 5 may be produced during discovery or otherwise disclosed or provided. In order to 6 protect information which may be made available in the course of discovery in this 7 case, and whose public disclosure may violate laws or regulations and may create a 8 risk of financial harm, competitive harm, or other harm to the parties and third parties, 9 the Parties are entering into this stipulation and requesting that the Court issue a 10 protective order in conformity with the terms set forth herein. The parties 11 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 12 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 13 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 14 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1 15 Good Cause Statement: The Parties anticipate that certain information 16 disclosed in this action during discovery is likely to include information that is 17 personal or otherwise confidential in nature and related information concerning third 18 parties, non-public financial information, and other proprietary and confidential 19 information of the Parties and third parties for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting of this action is 21 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 22 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 23 regarding confidential business practices, trade secrets, or other confidential 24 research, development, or commercial information (including information 25 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is similar to the model protective order provided 26 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 27 orders in related state court proceedings in order to avoid inconsistencies that could create inefficiencies and confusion among the cases. The parties believe a 28 substantially similar protective order among these related cases is appropriate. 1 implicating privacy rights of third parties), personally identifying information, 2 personal financial information, and information otherwise generally unavailable to 3 the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 4 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 5 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 6 confidentiality of discovery material, to adequately protect information the parties 7 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 8 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 9 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 10 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 11 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 12 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 13 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 14 part of the public record of this case. 15 Subject to the approval of this Court, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree as 16 follows: 17 1. SCOPE OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 18 (a) The protection of this Protective Order may be invoked with respect to 19 any documents, testimony, declarations, briefs, memoranda, exhibits, answers to 20 interrogatories, answers to requests for admissions and all other information 21 (collectively “Discovery Material”) produced or created by any party or non-party 22 (the “Producing Party”) to any other party or parties (the “Receiving Party”) in 23 connection with the above-captioned action (the “Litigation”). As used herein, the 24 term “Confidential Information or Items” includes testimony, records or other 25 tangible things, including but not limited to discovery responses, whether hardcopy 26 or electronic, that a Designating Party believes is entitled to confidentiality protection 27 under applicable legal and equitable principles. This includes items which a party 28 1 believes contains or reflects trade secrets, confidential or proprietary business 2 information, competitively sensitive information, and/or private personal, client or 3 customer information. Any Discovery Material produced by any party or non-party 4 as part of this action may be designated by such party or non-party as “Confidential” 5 or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” All non-public documents or non- 6 public information obtained through discovery or proceedings in this case, whether 7 or not designated as “Confidential”or “Highly Confidential –Attorneys’Eyes Only” 8 shall be used solely for prosecuting or defending claims in this Litigation, and not for 9 any business, competitive, personal, private, legal, or governmental purpose or 10 function, or any other litigation, and such non-public information shall not be 11 disclosed to anyone except as provided herein. 12 (i) (3) Zaks v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 23CV043575 (Alameda Super. 13 Ct.) (“Zaks”); and (4) Corona v. Tesla, Inc., Case No. 24CV64008 (Alameda Super. 14 Ct.) (“Corona”). 15 (ii) The protections conferred by this Protective Order do not cover 16 any item or information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a 17 Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a 18 Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Protective 19 Order.

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)
Neil Karunatilaka v. Tesla Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/neil-karunatilaka-v-tesla-inc-cacd-2025.