Nikolos Edward Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 5, 2026
Docket8:25-cv-01509
StatusUnknown

This text of Nikolos Edward Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC (Nikolos Edward Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC) 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
Nikolos Edward Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 Donald E. Bradley (State Bar No. 145037) d.bradley@musickpeeler.com 2 MUSICK, PEELER & GARRETT LLP 3 650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1200 Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925 4 Heliane Fabian (State Bar No. 361563) 5 hfabian@qslwm.com 6 QUILLING, SELANDER, LOWNDS, WINSLETT & MOSER, P.C. 7 6900 N. Dallas Parkway, Suite 800 Plano, Texas 75024 8 Counsel for Defendant Trans Union LLC 9

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 NIKOLOS EDWARD CARRAFIELD, Case No. 8:25-cv-01509-DOC-KES 14 Plaintiff, Hon. David O. Carter 15 v. [Discovery Document: Referred to 16 Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott] 17 TRANSUNION LLC, PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 18

Defendant. 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 6 warranted. Accordingly, Defendant Trans Union LLC (“Trans Union”) petitions the 7 Court to enter the following Proposed Protective Order. This Order does not confer 8 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 9 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 10 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is primarily based on credit reporting and, as such, will necessarily 13 involve Trans Union’s trade secrets, commercial, and proprietary information and 14 Plaintiff Nikolos Carrafield’s financial and personal identifying information for which 15 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 16 litigation of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 17 information consist of, among other things, confidential business practices and/or 18 financial information, confidential policies and procedures, training materials, and 19 other confidential personal or commercial information (including information 20 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable 21 to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 22 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 23 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 24 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 25 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 26 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 27 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective 1 order for such information is justified in this matter. Information will not be designated 2 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 3 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there 4 is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 5 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 6 As set forth in Section 14.3 below, this Protective Order does not entitle the 7 parties to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the 8 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 9 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption 10 that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In 11 connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 12 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th 13 Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), 14 Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 15 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 16 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must 17 be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 18 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does 19 not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 20 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 21 protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 23 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 24 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. 25 Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 26 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 27 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 1 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 2 declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 4 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 6 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 7 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include 8 an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 4. DEFINITIONS 10 4.1 Action: Nikolos Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-01509- 11 DOC-KES, which is currently pending in the United States Court for the Central 12 District of California – Southern Division, Santa Ana. 13 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 14 information or items under this Order. 15 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 16 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 17 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 18 Good Cause Statement. 19 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 20 support staff). 21 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 22 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 23 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 25 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 26 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 27 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 1 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 2 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 3 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 4 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 5 counsel. 6 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 7 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 8 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 9 to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have appeared 10 in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has 11 appeared on behalf of that party, and includes 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)
Nikolos Edward Carrafield v. Trans Union LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nikolos-edward-carrafield-v-trans-union-llc-cacd-2026.