Stephen H. Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 10, 2025·No. 2:18-cv-10219·Unknown

Opinion

NANCY G. ROSS (pro hac vice) 2 nross@mayerbrown.com BRETT E. LEGNER (pro hac vice) 3 blegner@mayerbrown.com 71 South Wacker Drive 4 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 782-0600 5 Facsimile: (312) 706-8140 6 Attorneys for Defendant Administrative Committee of the Northrop 7 Grumman Pension Plan 8 Additional counsel listed on the following page. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 STEPHEN H. BAFFORD and EVELYN L. WILSON, 13 Case No. 2:18-cv-10219-ODW-E Plaintiffs, 14 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIALS PENSION PLAN, Defendant. 18 Judge: Hon. Otis D. Wright II 19 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Charles F. Eick 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 KRISTIN W. SILVERMAN (SBN 341952) ksilverman@mayerbrown.com 2 2 Palo Alto Square 3000 El Camino Real, Suite 3000 3 Palo Alto, CA 94306-2112 Telephone: (650) 331-2055 4 Facsimile: (650) 331-2060 5 DOUGLAS ALLEN SMITH (SBN 290598) dougsmith@mayerbrown.com 6 333 South Grand Avenue, 47th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 7 Telephone: (213) 229-9500 Facsimile: (213) 625-0248 8 JORDAN C. HILTON (pro hac vice) 9 jhilton@mayerbrown.com One Utah Center 10 201 S. Main Street, Suite 1100 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 11 Telephone: (801) 907-2700 Facsimile: (801) 880-2221 12 Attorneys for Defendant Administrative 13 Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan 14 Teresa S. Renaker – CA State Bar No. 187800 15 teresa@renakerscott.com Kirsten G. Scott – CA State Bar No.253464 16 kirsten@renakerscott.com RENAKER SCOTT LLP 17 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125 San Francisco, CA 94111 18 Telephone: (415) 653-1733 Facsimile: (415) 761-3953 19 Elizabeth Hopkins – CA State Bar No. 324431 20 ehopkins@kantorlaw.net Susan Meter – CA State Bar No. 236133 21 smeter@kantorlaw.net Samantha L. Brener – Admitted Pro Hac Vice 22 sbrener@kantorlaw.net KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP 23 9301 Corbin Ave., Suite 1400 Northridge, CA 91324 24 Telephone: (818) 886-2525 Facsimile: (818) 350-6272 25 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Stephen H. Bafford and 26 Evelyn Wilson 27 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties in the above- 6 captioned matter (the “Action”) hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the 7 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not 8 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 9 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 10 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 11 principles. 12 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This Action asserting individual and class claims 13 under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) is likely to involve 14 confidential and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 15 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 16 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 17 among other things, confidential business or financial information, the personally 18 identifying information (e.g., dates of birth, social security numbers, home 19 addresses) and finances of pension plan participants, including a participant’s 20 earnings, designated beneficiaries, and dollar amount of pension benefits, and 21 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 22 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 23 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 24 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 25 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 26 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 27 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 1 information is justified in this Action. It is the intent of the parties that information 2 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 3 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 4 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 5 record of this case. 6 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further 7 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective 8 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 9 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 10 applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 11 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 12 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 13 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 14 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of 15 Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Zucchella v. 16 Olympusat, Inc., 2020 WL 2334118 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2020) (stipulated protective 17 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 18 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 19 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 20 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 21 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 22 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 23 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 25 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 26 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 27 See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 1 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 2 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 3 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 4 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 6 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 7 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 8 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 9 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 10 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: the above-captioned pending federal lawsuit, namely Bafford 13 v. Administrative Committee of the Northrop Grumman Pension Plan, No. 2:18-CV- 14 01219-ODW-E (C.D. Cal.). 15 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 16 of information or items under this Order.

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

Stephen H. Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Stephen H. Bafford v. Northrop Grumman Corporation (Stephen H. Bafford v. Northrop Grumman 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)