Nicholas McArthur v. RELX INC. and LEXIS-NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 23, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-06120
StatusUnknown

This text of Nicholas McArthur v. RELX INC. and LEXIS-NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC. (Nicholas McArthur v. RELX INC. and LEXIS-NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL 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
Nicholas McArthur v. RELX INC. and LEXIS-NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Ryan McCoy (SBN 276026) 2 rmccoy@seyfarth.com 3 Clara L. Rademacher (SBN 355494) crademacher@seyfarth.com 4 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor San Francisco, California 94105 5 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 6 7 Attorneys for Defendants RELX INC. and LEXIS-NEXIS RISK 8 SOLUTIONS FL INC. 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 NICHOLAS MCARTHUR, an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-06120-SK 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 v. Date Action Filed: June 3, 2025 16 RELX INC., a Delaware Corporation, LEXIS-NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL 17 INC., a Minnesota Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 23 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 24 for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 25 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 26 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 27 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 28 1 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 2 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 5 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 6 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 7 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 8 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 9 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, 10 or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 11 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 12 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 13 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 14 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 15 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 16 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 17 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 18 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 19 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 20 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be 21 so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 22 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 23 of this case. 24 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 26 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 27 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 28 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 1 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to 2 judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 3 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 4 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 5 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 6 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 7 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 8 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 9 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 10 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of 11 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 12 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 13 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 14 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 15 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 16 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 17 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 18 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 19 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 20 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 21 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 22 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 23 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 24 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 25 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 26 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 27 28 1 4. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action: Nicholas McArthur v. RELX INC., LEXIS-NEXIS RISK 3 SOLUTIONS, FL, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 4 2:25-cv-06120-SK. 5 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 6 information or items under this Order. 7 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 8 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 10 Statement. 11 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 12 support staff). 13 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 14 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 16 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 17 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 18 disclosures or responses to discovery. 19 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 21 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 22 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 23 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 24 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 25 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

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)
Nicholas McArthur v. RELX INC. and LEXIS-NEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS FL INC., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-mcarthur-v-relx-inc-and-lexis-nexis-risk-solutions-fl-inc-cacd-2025.