Robinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assoc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 20, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-03085·Unknown

Opinion

SCOTT ROBINSON; and SHELBY ROBINSON Case No. 2:24-cv-03085-DAD-SCR

Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v.

ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information. This information includes, but is not limited to, the policies and procedures of Defendant Chase for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted to avoid its misappropriation for criminal purposes by third parties who would use this information to commit acts of fraud. The Parties contend there is good cause and a particularized need for a protective order to preserve the interests of confidentiality and avoidance of fraudulent acts by third parties. 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. 1.2 Good Cause Statement: This action is likely to involve trade secrets, commercial, financial and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than litigation of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 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. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below in Section 12.3, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal. See Hon. Dale A. Drozd Standing Order in Civil Actions, DAD Standing Order_05222025.pdf . United States District Court Eastern District of California Local Rules 140 and 141 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper party seeks to file under seal. See, e.g., Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002). The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, which does not include discovery or class certification motions, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: For purposes of this Order, information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things considered to be “CONFIDENTIAL” Material include any information that a Party believes in good faith to be confidential or sensitive non-public information, including, but not limited to, trade secrets, of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and any applicable case law interpreting Rule 26(c)(l)(G). 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 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. 2.6 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 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. 2.10 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). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.

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

Robinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assoc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Robinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assoc. (Robinson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Assoc.) — 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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)