Roberto Gonzalez v. Trojan Battery Company, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 29, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-02735·Unknown

Opinion

Romina Keshishyan, Esq. Bar No.: 303522 romina@rklegalpc.com RK LEGAL, PC 655 North Central Avenue, Suite 1700 Glendale, California 91203 Telephone: (323) 744-4124 Facsimile: (323) 763-7770 Attorney for Plaintiff Jon Yonemitsu, Esq. Bar No. 199026 jyonemitsu@littler.com Noah J. Woods, Esq. Bar No. 264823 nwoods @littler.com Kara A. Cole, Esq. Bar No. 306515 i kcole@littler.com LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 501 W. Broadway, Suite 900 San Diego, California 92101-3577 Telephone: (619) 232-0441 Facsimile: (619) 232-4302 Attorneys for Defendant ROBERTO GONZALEZ, an Case No. 2:20-cv-02735-SB-MRW individual, Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER VS. TROJAN BATTERY COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company, Check if submitted without and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive material modifications to MRW form Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 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 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 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. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action involves employment claims, including disability discrimination, harassment, retaliation, and derivative claims, wrongful termination and wage and hour allegations inherently involving the discovery and disclosure of private and confidential personal, medical and employment information, including but not limited to, plaintiff’s sensitive and confidential mental and physical health records and medical history, current and/or former employee witness’s names, addresses, telephone numbers, social security numbers, personal identifiable information, job titles, personnel files, including confidential human resource files, and other private and confidential information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and private information is otherwise generally unavailable or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Disclosure of the foregoing confidential information to the public without proper protection will result in serious violation of privacy of third parties and may lead to misuse of such information. 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 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Roberto Gonzalez v. Trojan Battery Company, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02735-SB-MRW. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial will be governed by the orders of the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 4. DURATION Once a case proceeds to trial, all of the information admitted or used during a public trial that was designated as confidential or maintained pursuant to this protective order becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, to the extent a

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

Roberto Gonzalez v. Trojan Battery Company, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Roberto Gonzalez v. Trojan Battery Company, LLC (Roberto Gonzalez v. Trojan Battery Company, LLC) — 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)