Sheikh v. DaVita Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedAugust 22, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00111
StatusUnknown

This text of Sheikh v. DaVita Inc. (Sheikh v. DaVita 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
Sheikh v. DaVita Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 SAIRA SHEIKH, Case No. 2:25-cv-0111-TLN-CSK ? Plaintiff, 10 V. ORDER GRANTING STIPULATED 1 PROTECTIVE ORDER DAVITA INC.., et al., D (ECF No. 15) Defendants.

14 15 The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 15), 16 and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 7 141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. 18 The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain 19 jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 20 141.1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the 73 Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. Dated: August 22, 2025 -_ Cc . GHI SOO KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5, shei.0111.25 27 28

1 2 PANKIT DOSHI (SBN 231369) pdoshi@mwe.com 3 M. ALEJANDRA CHUMBES (SBN 358028) achumbes@mwe.com 4 MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 415 Mission St Suite 5600 5 San Francisco, CA 94105-2616 Telephone: +1 628 218 3800 6 Facsimile: +1 628 877 0107

7 CHRISTOPHER BRAHAM (SBN 293367) cbraham@mwe.com 8 MCDERMOTT WILL & SCHULTE LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 9 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 10 Telephone: (310) 277-4110

11 Attorneys for Defendants DAVITA, INC. AND DVA RENAL 12 HEALTHCARE, INC.

13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 SAIRA SHEIKH, an Individual, CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00111-TLN-CSK

18 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 v. 20 DAVITA INC., a Delaware corporation; DVA RENAL HEALTHCARE, INC., a Tennessee 21 corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 22 Defendant. 23

24 25 26 27 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private 3 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 4 than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 5 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 6 this Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 7 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 8 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 9 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 The Parties have good cause to request a protective order because documents relevant to the 11 adjudication of the claims at issue involve personal, private, and financial information for which 12 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 13 action is warranted. Such confidential and financial materials and information consist of, among 14 other things, medical records, medical notes, financial information relating to the business, 15 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 16 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 17 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 18 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 19 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 20 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 21 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 22 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 23 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 24 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 25 record of this case. 26 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Stipulated 1 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 2 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that 3 the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 4 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. 5 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 6 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 7 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific 8 showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 9 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ 10 mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” 11 does not – without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 12 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable – 13 constitute good cause. 14 4. DEFINITIONS 15 4.1 “Action” means the above entitled proceeding Saira Sheikh v. DaVita Inc. and DVA Renal 16 Healthcare, Inc., styled case No. 2:25-cv-00111-TLN-CSK. 17 4.2 “Court” shall mean the Honorable Troy L. Nunley or any other judge to which his Action 18 may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. 19 4.3 “Confidential” means any Documents, Testimony, or information which is in the 20 possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such Documents, 21 Testimony, or Information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. 22 4.4 “Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony or Information as defined 23 below designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this Stipulation and 24 Protective Order. 25 4.5 “Highly Confidential” means any information which belongs to a Designating Party who 26 believes in good faith that the Disclosure of such information to another Party or non-Party 27 would create a substantial risk of serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by 1 4.6 “Highly Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony, or Information, as 2 defined below, designated as “Highly Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this 3 Stipulation and Protective Order. 4 4.7 “Designating Party” means the Party that designates Documents, Testimony, or 5 Information as defined above as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” 6 4.8 “Disclose” or “Disclosed” or “Disclosure” means to reveal, divulge, give, or make 7 available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information contained therein. 8 4.9 “Documents” means (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and “Duplicate” as those terms are 9 defined by Federal Rules of Evidence Section 1001, which have been produced in discovery 10 in this Action by any person or entity, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or summaries of all 11 or any part of the foregoing. 12 4.10 “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony.

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

Related

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sheikh v. DaVita Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheikh-v-davita-inc-caed-2025.