Sarah Boldt v. Caesarstone USA Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 19, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-02343·Unknown

Opinion

CShoadhyi.nP.aRdegzevtat@ni c(aSpBsNto n1e9l9aw61y4e)r s.com humphreyss@ballardspahr.com Shahin.Rezvani@capstonelawyers.com BALLARD SPAHR LLP Abigail J. Gertner (pro hac vice) 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1400 Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com Majdi Y. Hijazin (pro hac vice) Los Angeles, CA 90067-2915 Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Telephone: 424.204.4400 Nathan N. Kiyam (SBN 317677) Facsimile: 424.204.4350 Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Attorneys for Defendant IKEA US Retail Los Angeles, California 90067 LLC Tel.: 310. 556-4811

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Caitlin C. Blanche (SBN 254109) CBlanche@Venable.com 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, California 90068 310.229.9900 Attorneys for Defendant Caesarstone USA, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION

S inA dR ivA idH ua B llO y,L aD ndT oa nn d b eL hI aS lA f o J fA aI llM E, Case No. 2:24-cv-02343-MEMF- others simila rly situated, A JR v. Plaintiff, [ PP RR OO TP EO CS TE ID V] E S OTI RP DU EL RA TED CAESARSTONE USA, INC., a California corporation; IKEA NORTH AMERICA SERVICES, LLC, a Virginia limited liability company; and IKEA US RETAIL LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, Defendant. 1. GENERAL 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 may involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 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 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Boldt, et al v. Caesarstone USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 2:24-cv-

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

Sarah Boldt v. Caesarstone USA Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Sarah Boldt v. Caesarstone USA Inc. (Sarah Boldt v. Caesarstone USA Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.