Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJuly 17, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-00754
StatusUnknown

This text of Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc. (Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 KARLA SCOTT, Case No. 1:22-cv-00754-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 19) 14 ARDAGH GLASS INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 20 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between Karla Scott (“Plaintiff”) 22 and Ardagh Glass Inc. (“Defendant”) (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective 23 counsel of record, that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which 24 may be subject to confidentiality limitations due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, 25 the Parties stipulate as set forth below. The Parties acknowledge and understand that this 26 Protective Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery, 27 that the protection it affords from public disclosures and use extends only to limited information 28 or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles, and that it 1 does not presumptively entitle parties to file confidential information under seal. 2 I. STATEMENT OF GOOD CAUSE 3 This lawsuit is a retaliation, wrongful termination, and defamation action arising from 4 Plaintiff’s former employment with Defendant. In light of the nature of the discovery sought in 5 the case and the Parties’ representations that discovery in this case will involve production of 6 confidential information which could lead to potential disputes regarding production of said 7 information, the Parties believe that a protective order is justified in this matter to help expedite 8 exchange of information and facilitate prompt resolution of any potential disputes regarding 9 confidentiality. In connection with discovery, Plaintiff has sought and may continue to seek 10 information and/or documents containing confidential information, including third-party 11 information protected by privacy laws such as personal and contact information of current and 12 former employees of Defendant, and proprietary business policies, procedures, and job 13 descriptions. The Parties recognize that employers such as Defendant are obligated to maintain 14 the right of privacy guaranteed by the California Constitution, which protects employees’ 15 personal information from improper disclosure to third parties. See Board of Trustees v. Superior 16 Courts, 119 Cal. App. 3d 516 (1981). The Parties desire to protect the confidentiality, use, and 17 dissemination of such information, agree that good cause exists for this Protective Order, and 18 agree that such an order is in the best interest of both parties. The Parties shall not designate any 19 information/documents as confidential without any good faith belief that such 20 information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner. 21 II. TERMS OF STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 22 1. Definitions: 23 (a) “Confidential” means information which is in the possession of a 24 Designating Party that is entitled to confidential treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25 26(c), and as specified above in the Statement of Good Cause. This includes third-party 26 information protected by privacy laws such as the identities and personal contact information of 27 current and former employees of Defendant, personnel records, payroll records and/or 28 1 timekeeping records of current and former employees of Defendant, and proprietary business 2 policies, procedures, and job descriptions of Defendant. 3 (b) “Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony or Information 4 as defined below designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this Protective Order. 5 (c) “Court” means any judge to whom this Proceeding may be assigned, 6 including the Honorable Stanley A. Boone, as well as Court staff participating in such 7 proceedings. 8 (d) “Designating Party” means the Party that designates Materials as 9 “Confidential.” 10 (e) “Disclose” or “Disclosed” or “Disclosure” means to reveal, divulge, give, 11 or make available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information contained therein. 12 (f) “Documents” means (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and “Duplicate” as 13 those terms are defined by California Evidence Code Sections 250, 255, and 260, and Federal 14 Rules of Evidence, Rule 1001, which have been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any 15 person, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or summaries of all or any part of the foregoing. 16 (g) “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony. 17 (h) “Party” and “Parties” means the named party(s) in the Proceeding. 18 (i) “Proceeding” means the above-entitled proceeding (Case No. 1:22-cv- 19 00754-SAB). 20 (j) “Testimony” means all depositions, declarations or other testimony taken 21 or used in this Proceeding. 22 2. The Designating Party shall have the right to designate as “Confidential” any 23 Documents, Testimony or Information that the Designating Party in good faith believes to contain 24 non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under Federal Rule of Civil 25 Procedure 26(c). 26 3. The entry of this Protective Order does not alter, waive, modify, or abridge any 27 right, privilege or protection otherwise available to any Party with respect to the discovery of 28 matters, including but not limited to any Party’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege, the 1 attorney work product doctrine, or other privileges, or any Party’s right to contest any such 2 assertion. 3 4. Any Documents, Testimony or Information to be designated as “Confidential” 4 must be clearly so designated before the Document, Testimony or Information is Disclosed or 5 produced. The designation should not obscure or interfere with the legibility of the designated 6 Information. 7 (a) For Documents (apart from transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or 8 trial proceedings), the Designating Party must affix the legend “Confidential” on each page of any 9 Document containing such designated Confidential Material. 10 (b) For Testimony given in depositions the Designating Party may either: 11 (i) identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, all 12 “Confidential” Testimony, by specifying all portions of the Testimony that qualify as 13 “Confidential”; or 14 (ii) designate the entirety of the Testimony at the deposition as 15 “Confidential” (before the deposition is concluded) with the duty to identify more specific 16 portions of the Testimony as to which protection is sought within 30 days following receipt of the 17 deposition transcript. In circumstances where portions of the deposition Testimony are 18 designated for protection, the transcript pages containing “Confidential” Information may be 19 separately bound by the court reporter, who must affix to the top of each page the legend 20 “Confidential,” as instructed by the Designating Party. 21 (c) For Information produced in some form other than Documents, and for any 22 other tangible items, including, without limitation, compact discs or DVDs, the Designating Party 23 must affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the media (i.e., Disc, Tape, Drive) which the 24 Information or item is stored the legend “Confidential.” If only portions of the Information or 25 item warrant protection, the Designating Patty, to the extent practicable, shall identify the 26 “Confidential” portions. 27 5.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Board of Trustees v. Superior Court
119 Cal. App. 3d 516 (California Court of Appeal, 1981)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scott-v-ardagh-glass-inc-caed-2023.