Oscar Mejia v. Credence Management Solutions

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 28, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-02032
StatusUnknown

This text of Oscar Mejia v. Credence Management Solutions (Oscar Mejia v. Credence Management Solutions) 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
Oscar Mejia v. Credence Management Solutions, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 OSCAR MEJIA, Case No. 2:23-cv-02032-SVW-E 12 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] ORDER APPROVING STIPULATED 13 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 CREDENCE MANAGEMENT Complaint removed: March 17, 2023 SOLUTIONS; UNITED HEALTHCARE 15 INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1 Trial Date: None set to 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Having read the parties’ stipulated protective order, and for good cause shown, the 2 Court hereby APPROVES the protective order as follows: 3 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 4 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 5 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 6 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 7 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 8 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 9 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 10 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 11 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 12 13 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 This action is likely to involve confidential health information, trade secrets, 15 customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, 16 financial, and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 17 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 18 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 19 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 20 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 21 (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 22 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 23 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 24 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 25 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 26 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 27 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 28 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 1 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 2 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 3 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 4 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 5 6 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 9 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 10 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 11 under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 14 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 15 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 16 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 17 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a 18 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 19 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 20 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 21 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 22 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 23 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 25 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 26 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 27 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 28 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection 1 with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 2 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 3 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must 4 be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 6 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 7 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 8 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 9 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 10 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: Oscar Mejia v. Credence Management Solutions, et al., Case No. 14 2:23-cv-02032-SVW-E. 15 2.2 Challenging Party A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 16 information or items under this Order. 17 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 18 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 19 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 21 support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 23 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 25 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 26 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 27 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 28 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 3 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 5 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 6 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 7 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Oscar Mejia v. Credence Management Solutions, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/oscar-mejia-v-credence-management-solutions-cacd-2023.