TAYLOR HANEY v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 24, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-01338
StatusUnknown

This text of TAYLOR HANEY v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC (TAYLOR HANEY v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
TAYLOR HANEY v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP KRISTIN KEMNITZER Bar No. 278946 2 ADAM J. MCNEILE Bar No. 280296 MALACHI J. HASWELL Bar No. 307729 3 KATHERINE SASS Bar No. 326185 1120 Mar West St., Ste. C-2 4 Tiburon, CA 94920 Telephone: (415) 632-1900 5 Facsimile: (415) 632-1901 kristin@kbklegal.com 6 adam@kbklegal.com kai@kbklegal.com 7 katie@kbklegal.com Attorneys for Plaintiff TAYLOR HANEY 8 David A. Berkley (Bar No. 260105) 9 Monique G. Matar (Bar No. 317145) WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP 10 400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700 Irvine, CA 92618 11 Telephone: (714) 557-3800 Facsimile: (714) 557-3347 12 Email: David.Berkley@wbd-us.com Email: Monique.Matar@wbd-us.com 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 Taylor Haney 19 Case No.: 5:25−cv−01338−KK 20 Plaintiff(s), (SSCx) 21 v.

22 Service Finance Company STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 23 Defendant(s). 24

25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 3 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 4 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 5 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 6 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter 7 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 8 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 9 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 10 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 11 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 12 principles. 13 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 14 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing 15 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 16 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 17 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of 18 this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 19 information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 20 financial information, information regarding confidential business 21 22 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 23 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 24 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 25 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 26 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 27 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 1 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 2 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary 3 uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 4 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 5 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 6 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 7 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without 8 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 9 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 10 record of this case. 11 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 12 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 13 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 14 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 15 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 16 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 17 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 18 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 19 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under 20 seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 21 22 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 23 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 24 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 25 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 26 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 27 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a 1 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 2 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 3 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, 4 or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 5 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 6 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must 7 be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the 8 specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 9 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, 10 document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 11 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 12 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 13 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 14 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided 15 by declaration. 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 17 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 18 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 19 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 20 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 21 22 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 23 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 26 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 27 designation of information or items under this Order. 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 2 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things 3 that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil 4 Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 5 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 6 well as their support staff). 7 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 8 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 9 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 11 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 12 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 13 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 14 responses to discovery in this matter. 15 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 16 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its 17 counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 18 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 19 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 20 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 21 22 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 23 filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 24 applicable law.

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

Related

United States v. Dale Lynn Ryan
9 F.3d 660 (Eighth Circuit, 1994)
United States v. Dusan Lakich
23 F.3d 1203 (Seventh Circuit, 1994)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
TAYLOR HANEY v. SERVICE FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/taylor-haney-v-service-finance-company-llc-cacd-2025.