Smith v. Superior Farms

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 13, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-01778·Unknown

Opinion

James D. McNairy (SBN 230903) jmcnairy@boutinjones.com Andrew M. Ducart (SBN 29371) aducart @boutinjones.com 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 1500 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 321-4444 Fax: (916) 441-7597

Attorneys for Defendant Ellensburg Lamb Co., Inc., d.b.a. Superior Farms (erroneously sued and served as “Superior Farms”)

Clayeo C. Arnold (SBN 65070) Joshua H. Watson (SBN 238058) Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional Law Corporation 865 Howe Ave. Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 777-7777 Fax: (916) 924-1829 Email: jwatson@justice4you.com

Attorneys for Plaintiff Ryan Smith, individually, and on behalf of similarly situated employees

RYAN SMITH, individually and on behalf of No. 2:20-cv-1778 KJM DB similarly situated employees, Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. SUPERIOR FARMS, Defendant. This Stipulated Protective Order (“Protective Order”) is entered into by and between Plaintiff Ryan Smith and Defendant Ellensburg Lamb Co., Inc., d.b.a. Superior Farms (erroneously sued and served as “Superior Farms”), by and through their counsel of record, in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents in this action which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights. WHEREAS, the Parties anticipate that, given the nature of the claims in this action, they will be asked to produce documents, provide testimony and/or otherwise disclose confidential, third party private information, private personnel information, trade secret, proprietary business, and/or financial information, and/or other information that requires protection as confidential (hereinafter defined as “Confidential Information”). WHEREAS, the Parties to this Action specifically expect that Defendant will be asked to produce personnel, time, and payroll records that implicate the constitutionally-protected privacy rights of its employees, as well as internal business records relating to Defendant’s employment policies and practices and business operations that contain highly proprietary and sensitive business information, the disclosure of which poses a substantial risk of harm to the Defendant’s proprietary and financial interests, including but not limited to (i) proprietary information related to Defendant’s operations, (ii) sensitive data regarding non-party employees of Defendant and other third parties; and (iii) other proprietary technical or commercially sensitive information that is not otherwise available to the public, including, but not limited to, information implicating commercial or trade secret interests of Defendant; WHEREAS, the disclosure of any such Confidential Information within this Action is made solely for purposes of this Action and shall not be used for any other purpose; WHEREAS, the Parties to this Action seek this Protective Order to establish procedures that will protect all Confidential Information while expediting the discovery process, limiting the occasion for discovery disputes regarding confidentiality and facilitating the disposition by the Court of any disputes that may arise in connection with discovery. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED, by and between the Parties, through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: This Protective Order shall apply to all documents, materials, and information, including without limitation, documents produced, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, and other information disclosed pursuant to the disclosure and The following definitions shall apply to this Protective Order: 1. The “Action” shall mean and refer to the above-captioned matter and to all actions now or later consolidated with the Action, and any appeal from the Action and from any other action consolidated at any time under the above-captioned matter, through final judgment. 2. “Document” refers to all things that come within the definition of a “writing,” “recording,” or “photograph” contained in Rule 1001 of the Federal Rules of Evidence; including, without limitation, documents of any kind, however reproduced and however transcribed or translated; electronic storage devices, electronic recordings of any kind, including computer program files, data files, source code, CD-ROM, or electronic mail; photographs or other visual or audio visual recording of any kind; including still or motion pictures, microfilm, microfiche, videotapes, or laser discs; and sound recording of any kind, including voicemail, cassette, microcassettes, or compact discs. Every original draft, iteration or non-identical copy is a separate Document as that term is used herein. 3. “Confidential” shall mean information designated “Confidential” pursuant to this Protective Order. Information designated “Confidential” is that which concerns or relates to private third party information, and/ or proprietary business, commercial and/or trade secret interests of a Party as determined in good faith by the attorneys representing the Designating Party. Confidential Documents, material, and/or information shall be used solely for purposes of litigation. Confidential Information shall not be used by the non-Designating Party for any business or other purpose, unless agreed to in writing by all Parties to this Action or as authorized by further order of the Court. 4. “Confidential Document” shall mean any Document that any Producing Party (as defined below) designates as “Confidential” in the manner set forth in this Protective Order. 5. “Confidential Information” shall mean any information not made available to the general public that concerns or relates to private, personal, proprietary business, trade secret, and/or financial information and that may be subject to a protective order under applicable law. 6. “Designating Party” shall mean the party in this Action, or any third parties, 7. “Producing Party” shall mean the Party producing Documents or providing testimony or other written discovery responses in this Action, whether informally or pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8. “Receiving Party” as used herein shall mean the Party that receives disclosure or discovery material in this Action. 9. “Legend” as used herein shall mean a stamp or similar insignia stating “Confidential,” or other appropriate term or terms identifying the level of confidentiality of the Document. 10. “Court” shall refer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, and include any judge to which this Action may be assigned as well as court staff participating in such proceedings. 11. When reference is made to any Document, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural shall include the singular. 1. Designation of Documents. a. Any Producing Party may designate any Document as “Confidential” that the party reasonably, and in good faith, believes contains Confidential Information. b. The Producing Party may designate a Document as “Confidential” by affixing the appropriate Legend to all copies of the Document (or CD or disk produced) at the time of production. The Producing Party must make document designations at the time of production or within a reasonable time thereafter if such designations are inadvertently omitted. c. Alternatively, if it is not feasible to mark or designate a Document as described above in Section B(1)(b), the Producing Party may send a cover letter with the Document noting which portions of the Document are “Confidential.” This shall have the same force and effect as affixing the appropriate Legend to all copies of the Document. d. A party may designate as “Confidential,” a Document produced by someone el

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

Smith v. Superior Farms, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Smith v. Superior Farms (Smith v. Superior Farms) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)