Salvador Correa v. Ford Motor Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 27, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-02389·Unknown

Opinion

1 Tionna Grace Carvalho (SBN 299010) Email: tcarvalho@slpattorney.com 2 Tara Mejia (SBN 344049) Email: tmejia@slpattorney.com 3 (emailservice@slpattorney.com) STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES 4 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 1888 Century Park East, Floor 19 5 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 929-4900 6 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 7 SALVADOR CORREA

8 ELIZABETH V. MCNULTY (SBN 192455) Email: emcnulty@efsmmlaw.com 9 JOSHUA D. COOLS (SBN 319531) Email: jcools@efsmmlaw.com 10 SAMANTHA M. GERAGHTY Email: sgeraghty@efsmmlaw.com 11 EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 1 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 500 12 IRVINE, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 301-9464 13 Facsimile: (949) 966-0706 Attorneys for Defendant 14 FORD MOTOR COMPANY 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 SALVADOR CORREA, Case No. 2:23-cv-02389-AB-PD 18

Plaintiff, Judge: Hon. Andre Birotte 19 Magistrate: Patricia A. Donahue v. 20 FORD MOTOR COMPANY; and 21 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 22 Defendants.

23 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 24 Disclosure and discovery in this action is likely to involve production of 25 confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive, personally identifiable information 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 1 (“PII”) or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 2 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 3 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 4 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 5 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 6 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 7 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 8 legal principles. 9 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 11 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 12 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 13 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 14 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 15 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 16 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 17 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 18 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 19 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 20 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 21 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 22 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 23 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 24 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 25 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 26 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 27 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 1 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 2 record of this case. 3 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 6 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 7 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 8 file material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 11 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 12 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 13 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 14 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 15 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 16 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 17 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 18 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 19 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 20 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 21 protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 23 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 24 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 25 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 26 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 27 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 1 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 2 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 6 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 7 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 8 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 11 the designation of information or items under this Order. 12 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 14 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 15 Good Cause Statement. 16 2.3 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 17 their support staff). 18 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 19 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL” Or “SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” 21 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 22 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.6 Expert: a non-attorney person with specialized knowledge or 26 experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 27 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action, provided 1 competitor of the Designating Party. 2 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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

Salvador Correa v. Ford Motor Company, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Salvador Correa v. Ford Motor Company (Salvador Correa v. Ford Motor Company) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)