(PS) Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 18, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-01492·Unknown

Opinion

Law Offices of MATHENY SEARS LINKERT & JAIME LLP MATTHEW C. JAIME (SBN 140340) JOSEPH F. OFFENHAUSER (SBN 341362) 3638 American River Drive Sacramento, California 95864 Telephone: (916) 978-3434 Facsimile: (916) 978-3430 Email: mjaime@mathenysears.com joffenhauser@mathenysears.com Attorneys for Defendant, COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION

RUBY N. THOMAS, an individual, No. 2:21-cv-1492 TLN DB

Plaintiffs, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE v. ORDER COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants. TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and Local Rule 141.1(c), Plaintiff RUBY N. THOMAS (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), by and through her counsel, and Defendant COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION (hereinafter “Costco”), by and through its counsel of record, stipulate that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, privacy rights, and the need to protect proprietary trade secrets, the PARTIES stipulate as follows: 1. The Parties represent that certain discovery materials to be exchanged in this case, including documents, interrogatory answers, and other discovery, will contain confidential, non- public information of a financial and/commercial nature which may constitute a trade secret or proprietary information. The Parties do not wish to unreasonably impede or burden the discovery process, but, at the same time, recognize an obligation to take reasonable steps to safeguard legitimate confidentiality concerns. The Parties intend this Stipulation and Protective Order to address these concerns. 2. In this Stipulation and Protective order, the words set forth below shall have the following meanings: a. “Proceeding” means the above-entitled proceeding Case No. 2:21-CV- 01492-TLN-DB. b. “Court” means any judge to which this Proceeding may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. c. “Confidential” means any information and materials that are trade secrets or constitute other confidential or proprietary research, development or commercial information, including, but not limited to, internal procedures and policies demonstrating how Costco operates its business on both a corporate and individual warehouse level and the process by which Costco’s products are created, internal information regarding the confidential process created by Costco to provide efficient service, studies and/or surveys sponsored by Costco to gain market knowledge and determine process(es) by which efficient service can be attained and maintained, supplier lists, all to the extent that publication of such materials to a competitor could be detrimental to Costco’s ability to compete. Confidential information may include contact information (last known address and phone numbers, and email address) for Costco’s current and former employees (excluding employees with percipient knowledge). There is a particularized need for protection of each of the above categories, as each category contains a trade secret or other confidential or proprietary research, development, or commercial information that was created and/or obtained by Costco at a great time and monetary cost, and the disclosure of which may be a detriment to Costco and its ability to compete in the warehouse and wholesale industry. Attorney client or work product documents, or documents prepared in anticipation of litigation are privileged and subject to a separate and distinct meet and confer process. i. “Good Cause:” Discovery in this action will involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection is warranted. Specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted as to proprietary trade secrets because it will detriment Costco’s ability to compete in the warehouse and shopping market industry. ii. “Specific Types of Information/Categories Eligible for Protection and Particularized Need to Protect:” Examples include, but may not be limited to, Employee Manual (contains Costco policy on warehouse function, including trade secret on operational specifics—without protective order, competitors can duplicate and improperly use to detriment of Costco); Member Service and Loss Prevention Manual (includes proprietary description of Costco operations—without protective order, competitors can duplicate and improperly use to the detriment of Costco), personnel records (Costco has specific duty to protect the private employment records of its employees, this duty and the privacy rights of the employee would be violated without a protective order), customer lists (customers with percipient knowledge are not subject to this, customer lists includes lists of non-percipient witnesses—their private information including contact information and financial information are confidential, disclosure without a protective order can result in violations of their privacy, and improper use of their information.) (Local Rule 141.1(c)(1)(2).) iii. “Court Order Necessary:” A court order will allow for a neutral process and intermediary should there be a dispute as to whether a document is “CONFIDENTIAL.” Further, the process for filing under seal, when necessary, will be well defined for this court and Parties. Because of the sensitive nature of these documents, the agreement between parties to keep these documents “CONFIDENTIAL” requires approval by this Court in accordance with federal and Local Rules. Otherwise, a producing party would have a mere contractual claim against a lawyer or his client for dissemination of trade secret and commercial information, with no meaningful remedy. Moreover, a subsequent claimant might point to such an informal agreement as evidence that the producing party does not take reasonable steps to secure its proprietary and trade secret information. A court order, in contrast, provides the quick and powerful remedy and mechanism of contempt proceedings in the event of a violation and improper or inadvertent disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” documents. (Local Rule 141.1(c)(3).) d. “Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony, or Information containing sensitive commercial information, including but not limited to, lists of employee names, lists which may contain customer names, proprietary policies, and other such private and confidential materials. “Confidential Materials” will be designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order. e. “Designating PARTY” means the PARTY that designates Materials as “Confidential.” f. “Disclose” or “Disclosed” or “Disclosure” means to reveal, divulge, give, or make available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information contained therein. g. “Documents” means (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and “Duplicate” as those terms are defined by California Evidence Code Sections 250, 255, and 260, which have been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any person, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or summaries of all or any part of the foregoing. h. “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony. i. “Testimony” means all depositions, declarations or other testimony taken or used in this Proceeding. j. “PARTY” or “PARTIES” shall refer to the Plaintiff and/or Defendant Costco Corporation. 3. The Designating PARTY shall have the right to designate as “Confidential” any Documents, whether produced by PARTIES to the litigation or non-PARTIES, answers to written discovery, Testimony or Information that the Designating PARTY in good faith believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. 4. The entry of this Stipulation and Protective Order does not alter, waive, modify, or abridge any right, privilege or protecti

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

(PS) Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

(PS) Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp. ((PS) Thomas v. Costco Wholesale Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)