Pliego v. Walmart, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 18, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-00858·Unknown

Opinion

Bron E. D’Angelo, Esq. (SBN 246819) 1 Sean N. Costa, Esq. (SBN 347439) BURGER|MEYERLLP 2 999 Corporate Drive, Suite 220 Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 3 Tele: (949) 427-1888 Fax: (949) 427-1889 4 Email:bdangelo@burgermeyer.com scosta@burgermeyer.com 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 WALMART, INC. 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EDUARDO GARCIA PLIEGO, an Case No: 1:23-cv-00858-ADA-CDB 11 individual, Judge Ana de Alba 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 WALMART, INC.; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 Action Filed: April 27, 2023 Trial Date: None 17 18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 The following parties, EDUARDO GARCIA PLIEGO (“Plaintiff”) and 20 WALMART, INC. (“Walmart”), by their undersigned counsel, have and hereby 21 stipulate and agree to entry of the following Stipulated Protective Order and to abide 22 by the following terms: 23 WHEREAS, the Parties have propounded or will propound certain discovery 24 requests and initial disclosures including information which either Party considers to 25 be proprietary, confidential business records and/or trade secrets, or sensitive, 26 confidential or private information (“confidential documents and information”); and 1 complying with these discovery requests and initial disclosures, provided that the 2 Court enter an appropriate protective order; and 3 WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 4 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 5 affordsfrompublicdisclosureanduseextendsonlytothelimitedinformationoritems 6 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles; and 7 WHEREAS, the Parties have agreed to this; 8 The following procedure shall govern the production, use and disposal of the 9 confidential documents and information: 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve trade secrets and other valuable commercial, 12 financial, technical, security, and/or proprietary information for which special 13 protectionfrompublicdisclosureandfromuseforanypurposeotherthanprosecution 14 of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 15 information consist of, among other things, confidential business information, 16 information regarding confidential business practices, or other commercial 17 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 18 information generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 19 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 20 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 21 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidential of discovery materials, 22 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 23 ensure that the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 24 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 25 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 26 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that the information will not be 1 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 2 case. 3 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 4 SEAL 5 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 9.3, below, that this 6 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 7 under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 8 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file 9 material under seal. 10 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 11 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 12 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 13 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 14 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 15 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 16 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 17 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 18 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 19 of Disclosure or Discovery Materials as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 20 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 21 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 22 protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons,not only good cause, for the sealing must beshown and the relief 25 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 26 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 1 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 2 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 3 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 6 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 7 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 8 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 9 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 2. SCOPE 11 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 12 confidential material but also (1) any information copied or extracted from the 13 confidential material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of the 14 confidential material, and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by 15 Parties or their Counsel that might reveal the confidential material. The material 16 expected to fall within the protection of this Stipulation and Order are: Walmart 17 policies and procedures related to store and bathroom maintenance, response to 18 incidents occurring within stores, and incident reporting. This Stipulation and Order 19 alsoisexpectedtoprotectproprietaryandconfidentialstoremanagementandincident 20 reporting protocols expected to be sought by Plaintiff via a deposition of a person 21 most knowledgeable. This information needs protection as it involves trade secrets 22 thatcouldbedamagingtoWalmart’sfinancialhealthifdisclosedtothegeneralpublic. 23 A Court order is necessary to ensure protection as it will provide the greatest 24 protections against any potential disclosures. 25 Any use of the confidential material at trial shall be governed by the orders of 26 thetrial judge.ThisOrder does not govern the use of the confidential material at trial. 1 3. DURATION 2 Onceacaseproceedstotrial,informationthatwasdesignated as“confidential” 3 or “produced pursuant to protective order” or in some similar fashion any document 4 for which it claims protection under this Order, becomes public and will be 5 presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless 6 compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are 7 made to the trial judge in advance of trial.

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

Pliego v. Walmart, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2024).

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)