Sean Leonard v. Navy Federal Credit Union; Early Warning Services, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 8, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-04799
StatusUnknown

This text of Sean Leonard v. Navy Federal Credit Union; Early Warning Services, LLC (Sean Leonard v. Navy Federal Credit Union; Early Warning Services, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sean Leonard v. Navy Federal Credit Union; Early Warning Services, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 Case No. 2:25-cv-04799 5 SEAN LEONARD

6 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 7 v. ORDER1

8 NAVY FEDERAL CREDIT 9 UNION; EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC, 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 1. INTRODUCTION 14 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 15 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 16 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 17 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 18 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 19 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 20 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 21 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 22 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 23 24 25 26 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model 27 protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 2 legal principles. 3 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve trade 4 secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, 5 development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 6 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 7 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 8 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 9 among other things, confidential business or financial information, 10 information regarding confidential business practices, or other 11 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 12 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 13 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 14 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 15 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 16 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 17 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 18 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 19 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 20 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 21 22 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 23 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 24 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 25 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 26 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 27 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 1 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 2 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 4 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 5 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 6 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 8 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 9 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 10 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 11 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 12 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 14 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 15 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 16 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 17 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 18 Disclosure or Discovery Material as “Confidential” or “Confidential- 19 Attorneys’ Eyes Only” does not—without the submission of competent 20 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 21 22 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 23 protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 25 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 26 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 27 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 1 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 2 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 3 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 4 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 5 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 6 seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 8 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 9 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 10 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 11 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 12 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 13 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14

15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 18 19 designation of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3 “Confidential Material”: information (regardless of how it is 21 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 22 protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and 23 as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 24 2.4 “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information means 25 Confidential Material that falls within one or more of the following 26 categories: 27 1 a. Trade secrets information, including a formula, pattern, 2 compilation, program, device, method, technique, process, financial data, 3 or list of actual or potential customers or suppliers, that derives 4 independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally 5 known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by, other 6 persons who can obtain economic value from its disclosure or use; 7 b. Highly sensitive financial, commercial, and marketing 8 information relating to the Parties’ respective products and/or business 9 activities. 10 2.5 “Confidential” information means all other Confidential 11 Material that does not constitute Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only 12 information, including but not limited to: 13 (a) Research and development information; 14 (b) Information prohibited from disclosure by statute; 15 (c) Medical information concerning any individual; 16 (d) Personal identity information; 17 (e) Income tax returns (including attached schedules and 18 forms, W-2 forms and 1099 forms); or 19 (f) Personnel or employment records of a person who is not 20 a Party to the case. 21 2.6 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 22 well as their support staff).

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

Related

Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sean Leonard v. Navy Federal Credit Union; Early Warning Services, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sean-leonard-v-navy-federal-credit-union-early-warning-services-llc-cacd-2026.