Patricia Laucella v. Medtronic, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 1, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00466·Unknown

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PATRICIA LAUCELLA, individually Case No.: 2:25-cv-00466-SB-PVCx and on behalf of the Estate of ERIK LOMIS; NATALIA JOVOVICH; and ORDER Plaintiffs, v. MEDTRONIC, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants. INTRODUCTION Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 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 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. Specifically, under Civil Local Rule 79-5, the parties acknowledge that if any party seeks to file under seal any Protected Material it must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5. Protected Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at issue. If a Party's request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless otherwise instructed by the court. Good cause exists to support the entry of this protective order. Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs were damaged by the wrongful death of Decedent, Erik Lomis (“Decedent”). SAC ¶ 1. Plaintiffs further allege that a manufacturing defect present in the Medtronic Evera™ XT DR DDBB1D4 (“the Device”) implanted in Decedent caused the event. Id. ¶ 2. As such, discovery in this action will necessarily include disclosure of Decedent’s confidential health records as well as trade secrets, valuable research and development information, and other financial, technical, and proprietary information related to the Device for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Dan Abrams Co. LLC v. Medtronic, Inc., No. 215CV01212JAKASX, 2021 WL 5113487, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2021). Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 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 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. The parties have hereby stipulated and agreed, and therefore IT IS ORDERED, that all discovery, including documents produced in this action, shall be subject to the following restrictions, and that the following terms and conditions shall govern the treatment of Confidential Information. 1. Confidential Information. “Confidential Information” refers to information, documents, or other material that the designating party reasonably and in good faith believes constitutes or reflects trade secrets or information whose confidentiality is otherwise protectable under applicable law. This includes but is not limited to confidential research, development, or commercial information, personal medical information, private personal information, protected health information, tax returns, and other information reasonably sought to be kept confidential. 2. Designation of Confidential Information. Any party may reasonably designate any document containing Confidential Information, or portion thereof, which it may produce as “Confidential” by labeling the document to be so designated substantially as follows: “CONFIDENTIAL: SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” The designation CONFIDENTIAL: SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER does not mean that the document has any status or protection by statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order. 3. Use of Confidential Information. Anyone who is provided with solely in connection with this action, shall keep such information strictly confidential, and shall in no way disclose such information, or any portion, summary, abstract or other derivation thereof, to any firm, person, or entity, except as provided in paragraph 4. No party may withhold any responsive document from production on the basis that it contains or constitutes Confidential Information. This Protective Order is intended to facilitate the disclosure of such information, not prevent it. 4. Disclosure of Confidential Information. Access to Confidential Information shall be limited to: (a) Attorneys. Attorneys of record and other personnel in their law firm(s) (including other attorneys, paralegals, and other staff personnel) who require access for the purpose of representing any party in this action. (b) Named parties. The named parties in this action. (c) Experts and consultants. Outside experts or consultants retained in connection with this action, provided that they first shall be shown and shall read a copy of this Stipulated Protective Order, and shall execute a Confidentiality Agreement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A. Counsel shall retain executed Confidentiality Agreements for consultants and experts, but shall not be required to produce them absent Court order upon showing of good cause. (d) Witnesses. Witnesses who testify at depositions, hearings, or trial, if any such further proceedings occur in this case. (e) Court reporters and videographers. Court reporters and videographers appearing at depositions, hearings, or trial, if any such further proceedings occur in this case. (g) Vendors. Vendors hired by a party to host data and maintain a database of electronic data or perform other work related to the collection, review, or production of documents in this case. (h) Other persons. Without the necessity of a Court order, any other person who the parties jointly agree may have access to the Confidential Information. 5. Non-Waiver of Confidentiality or Objection to Production. Review of Confidential Information by any person in paragraph 4 shall not waive the confidentiality of that information. 6. Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Information. The inadvertent, unintentional, or in camera disclosure of Confidential Information shall not be deemed a waiver, in whole or in part, of any party’s claim of confidentiality. Within fifteen (15) days of discovering such inadvertent or unintentional disclosure, any party to this Order may advise the other parties that the Confidential Information is to be designated as Confidential under the terms of this Order. 7. Inadvertent Disclosure of Privileged Information. In the interest of expediting discovery in this proceeding and avoiding unnecessary costs, (a) inadvertent or unintentional disclosure in this litigation of privileged information and/or work product shall not be deemed a waiver, in whole or in part, of any otherwise valid claim of privilege, immunity, or other protection; and (b) failure to assert a privilege and/or work product in this litigation as to one document or communication shall not be deemed to constitute a waiver, in whole or in part, of the privilege, immunity, or other protection as to any oth

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

Patricia Laucella v. Medtronic, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Patricia Laucella v. Medtronic, Inc. (Patricia Laucella v. Medtronic, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.