Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 17, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-00754·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

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

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

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

Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc. (Scott v. Ardagh Glass Inc.) — 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)
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)