Stacey Wade-James v. Genzyme Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 7, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01364·Unknown

Opinion

1 LAAngWel OJ.F HFoICraEcSek O (FS BANN 2G4E5L6 8J0. )H ORACEK, PC 2 angel@horaceklaw.com Iryll Robbins-Umel (SBN 249562) 3 iryll@horaceklaw.com 5701 West Slauson Avenue, Suite 210 4 Culver City, CA 90230 310-774-0323 310-774-3945 fax 5

Attorneys for Plaintiff 6 STACEY WADE-JAMES

7 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Dana L. Peterson (SBN 178499) 8 dpeterson@seyfarth.com John Ayers-Mann (SBN 348249) 9 jayers-mann@seyfarth.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 10 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 11 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219

12 Attorneys for Defendant GENZYME CORPORATION dba SANOFI 13

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16

17 STACEY WADE-JAMES, an individual, Case No. 2:24-cv-01364 ODW-SSC

18 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

19 v. Assigned to Hon. Otis D. Wright, II

20 GENZYME CORPORATION, dba Complaint Filed: January 16, 2024 State Court Case No.: 24STCV01147 21 SANOFI, a corporation, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Removal Date: February 20, 2024 22 Defendants. Trial Date: June 10, 2025 23

24 25 26 27 28 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 3 production of confidential or private information for which special protection from 4 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter 6 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 10 principles. 11 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 12 This action may involve medical information about Plaintiff, private information 13 about other employees, and sensitive commercial information for which special 14 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of 15 this action is warranted. Such confidential materials and information consist of, among 16 other things, information pertaining to medical care, private details about other Sanofi 17 employees, and sensitive commercial information otherwise generally unavailable to the 18 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 19 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 20 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 21 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 22 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary 23 uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 24 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for 25 such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 26 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 27 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non- 28 1 public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 2 this case. 3 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further 4 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 5 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets 6 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 7 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 8 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 9 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 10 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 11 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. 12 Gen. Motors 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 protective orders 14 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 15 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 16 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 17 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 18 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 19 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 20 protectable—constitute good cause. 21 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 22 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 23 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 24 Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or 25 type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 26 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 27 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 28 1 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 2 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 4 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 6 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 7 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 8 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: Stacey Wade-James v. Genzyme Corporation dba Sanofi. . 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 12 information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 14 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 15 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good 16 Cause Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 22 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 23 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 24 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 27 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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

Stacey Wade-James v. Genzyme Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Stacey Wade-James v. Genzyme Corporation (Stacey Wade-James v. Genzyme Corporation) — 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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)