Sunil Kumar, Ph. D. v. Dr. Jolene Koester

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 24, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-07550·Unknown

Opinion

10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 12 13 SUNIL KUMAR, Ph. D., PRAVEEN Case No. 2:22-cv-07550-RGK-MAA SINHA, Ph. D., 14 [PROPOSED] ORDER Plaintiffs, 15 Judge: Maria A. Audero v. Trial Date: October 31, 2023 16 DR. JOLENE KOESTER, in her 17 official capacity as Chancellor of California State University, 18 Defendant. 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 TO THE COURT, ALL PARTIES, AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF 2 RECORD: 3 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that by stipulation of the parties and for good cause 4 shown, the Court grants the Stipulated Protective Order (Exhibit 1). See Phillips ex 5 rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1211 (9th Cir. 2002), citing 6 Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 36, (1984) (Federal Rule of Civil 7 Procedure 26(c) “confer[s] ‘broad discretion on the trial court to decide when a 8 protective order is appropriate and what degree of protection is required.’”). There 9 is good cause to grant the Stipulated Protective Order because pre-trial discovery in 10 this action is likely to involve confidential information about students and 11 employees of the California State University. This confidential information is likely 12 to include private identifying information, which students, employees, and other 13 stakeholders have asked to remain confidential or which are otherwise protected 14 from disclosure under law. Considering “the fruits of pre-trial discovery are, in the 15 absence of a court order to the contrary, presumptively public” (San Jose Mercury 16 News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir.1999)), and 17 weighing the competing needs and interests of the parties affected, this information 18 is not appropriate for public information. Therefore, after review and consideration 19 of the Stipulated Protective Order, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY 20 ORDERED that the Protective Order is GRANTED. 21 July 24, 2023 22 DATED: _______________ _______________________________ 23 Honorable Maria A. Audero United States Magistrate Judge 24 25 26 27 1 EXHIBIT 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 JOHN J. SHAEFFER (SBN 138331) JShaeffer(@FoxRothschild.com 2 FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP Constellation Place 3 10250 Constellation Blvd, Suite 900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 4 Telephone: 310.598.4150 Facsimile: 310.556.9828 5 MICHAEL K. TWERSKY (pro hac vice) 6 MTwersky@FoxRothschild.com BETH WEISSER (pro hac vice) 7 BWeisser@FoxRothschild.com 980 Jolly Road, Suite 110 8 Blue Bell, PA 19422 Telephone: (215) 299-2923 9 Facsimile: (610) 397-0450

10 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

11 [Additional Counsel Listed on Next Page]

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 15

16 SUNIL KUMAR, Ph. D., PRAVEEN Case No. 2:22-cv-07550-RGK-MAA 17 SINHA, Ph. D., STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 18 Plaintiffs, ORDER

19 v.

20 DR. JOLENE KOESTER, in her official capacity as Chancellor of 21 California State University,

22 Defendant.

24 25 26 27 1 RICHARD A. PAUL (SBN 57976) rich.paul@quarles.com 2 JEFFREY P. MICHALOWSKI (SBN 248073) jeff.michalowski@quarles.com 3 MATTHEW W. BURRIS (SBN 325569) matt.burris@quarles.com 4 ADRIELLI FERRER (SBN 348068) adrielli.ferrer@quarles.com 5 QUARLES & BRADY LLP 101 West Broadway, Ninth Floor 6 San Diego, California 92101-8285 Telephone: 619-237-5200 7 Facsimile: 619-615-0700

8 Attorneys for Defendant

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 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 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 9 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 10 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 11 set forth in Section 13.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 12 them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 13 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 14 seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 15 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action is likely to involve confidential information about students and 17 employees for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 18 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 19 proprietary materials and information consist of, private identifying information, 20 information which students, employees, and other stakeholders have asked to remain 21 confidential, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure 22 under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 23 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 24 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 25 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 26 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 27 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the 1 the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 2 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 3 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 4 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 5 3. DEFINITIONS 6 3.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 7 3.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation 8 of information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 9 3.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 the Good Cause Statement. 13 3.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff). 15 3.5 Designating Party: A Party or Nonparty that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 3.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 19 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 20 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that is produced or 21 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 22 3.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 23 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 24 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 25 3.8 In-House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 26 Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 27 outside counsel. 1 3.9 Nonparty: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Sunil Kumar, Ph. D. v. Dr. Jolene Koester, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Sunil Kumar, Ph. D. v. Dr. Jolene Koester (Sunil Kumar, Ph. D. v. Dr. Jolene Koester) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart
467 U.S. 20 (Supreme Court, 1984)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)