Thompson v. Tesla Motors Inc

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided December 5, 2023·No. 3:21-cv-00238·Unknown

Opinion

1 KATHLEEN BLISS, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7606 2 kb@kathleenblisslaw.com KATHLEEN BLISS LAW, PLLC 3 170 South Green Valley Parkway 4 Suite 300 Henderson, Nevada 89012 5 Telephone: (702) 318-7375 6 MILAN CHATTERJEE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 15159 7 Milan@MilansLegal.com 8 MILAN’S LEGAL 3172 N. Rainbow Blvd, #1406 9 Las Vegas, NV 89108 Telephone: (702) 381-2875 10 Attorneys for Lynn Thompson 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 14 LYNN THOMPSON, Case No.: 3:21-cv-00238-HDM-CSD 15 Plaintiff, 16 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 18 TESLA MOTORS, INC; ONQGLOBAL, INC.; DOES 1-15, 19 20 Defendants. Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c) and The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act 21 of 1996 (HIPAA), Public Law 104-191, the parties herein, Plaintiff Lynn Thompson and Defendants 22 Tesla Motors, Inc. (“Tesla”), OnQGlobal, Inc. (“OnQ”), by and through their respective counsel of 23 record, hereby stipulate to a protective order covering the disclosure of confidential, proprietary, or 24 private information and materials requiring special protection from disclosure to and use by the 25 public and unauthorized third parties. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that the 26 handling of such information and materials in these proceedings shall be governed by the provisions 27 set forth below. 28 1 I. APPLICATION 2 This Protective Order shall govern the designation and handling of “Confidential 3 Information” and “Attorneys’ Eyes-Only Information” (defined below) produced in this case, 4 whether by voluntary production or disclosure or in response to any formal discovery procedure, 5 including designation and handling of nonpublic information of a confidential nature. This 6 Protective Order does not affect any party’s obligations to produce documents as required by the 7 rules of discovery or an order of the Court. The purpose of this Protective Order is to facilitate the 8 handling of nonpublic information of a confidential, private, or proprietary nature. If material is 9 otherwise already part of the public record as of the entry of this Protective Order, the material in 10 question will not be subject to this Protective Order. The mere filing or production of material 11 containing “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by the non-designating party does not remove 12 the material from the protection of this Protective Order. 13 II. DEFINITIONS 14 A.“Confidential Information” means information or an item, in any form, whether tangible 15 or intangible, that in good faith: (1) is designated as such by the producing party, and (2) that, as 16 claimed by the producing party, (a) contains non-public personal information of a party or non-party 17 (including, but not limited to, address, telephone number, email address, birth date, social security 18 number, employment records, medical information, financial and banking information, etc.); (b) 19 contains non-public business, commercial, or proprietary information of a party or non-party 20 (including, but not limited to, personnel information, investigatory information, strategies, trade 21 secrets, etc.); (c) non-public communications with law enforcement and government agencies or 22 their agents or designees; (d) is subject to an agreement, obligation, or duty of confidentiality, 23 nondisclosure, or similar protection; (e) is subject to a protective or similar order; or (f) is 24 confidential, private, privileged or otherwise protected under applicable law (e.g., statute, regulation, 25 ordinance, rule, policy, opinion, or case), or governmental policy, opinion, guidance or 26 interpretation. 27 B. “Attorneys’ Eyes-Only Information” is a subset of Confidential Information that in 28 good faith: (1) is designated as such by the producing party, and (2) that, as claimed by the producing 1 party, contains highly sensitive, or proprietary information the disclosure of which would create a 2 substantial risk of serious harm to a party or non-party that could not be avoided by less restrictive 3 means than designation as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” including, but not limited to, (a) medical records 4 and healthcare information; (b) information which cannot otherwise be redacted; (c) surveillance 5 information, including, but not limited to policies, practices, and procedures, location of cameras, 6 methods of recording, video footage and reports; (d) investigative methods; or (e) trade secrets. All 7 references herein to “Confidential” information includes “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” except where the 8 permissible disclosure or dissemination of “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information is more limited than 9 permissible disclosure or dissemination of “Confidential” information. 10 C. “Disclosed” is used in its broadest sense and includes, inter alia, directly, or indirectly 11 shown, divulged, revealed, produced, described, transmitted, or otherwise communicated, in whole, 12 or in part. 13 D. “Discovery Material(s)” means any documents, electronically stored information, 14 responses to written discovery, deposition testimony, transcripts and exhibits, responses to 15 subpoenas, requests for information and/or written information, whether produced voluntarily or 16 involuntarily, or other disclosure or production in response to a discovery request in this litigation 17 by any party. 18 E. “Document” is defined as the term is used in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 34. 19 III. TYPES OF MATERIALS THAT MAY BE DESIGNATED AS CONFIDENTIAL 20 Any Discovery Material or other documents, information, or materials may be designated by 21 a producing party or non-party as Confidential under this Order. The assertion of this designation of 22 “Confidential” shall constitute a representation to the Court that counsel (or producing person, in the 23 case of a non-party) for the producing party or non-party believes in good faith that the material so 24 designated constitutes Confidential Information as defined in this Order. To the extent practicable, 25 only those parts of Discovery Materials that require protection shall be designated as Confidential 26 or Attorneys’ Eyes Only. Mass, indiscriminate, or blanket designations are prohibited. Unjustified 27 designations may expose the designating party to sanctions, which could include, without limitation, 28 the award of attorneys’ fees and costs, and the striking of confidential designations. If a designating 1 party later learns that information it designated as confidential does not qualify for protection, then 2 the party must promptly notify all Parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 3 IV. DESIGNATION OF DISCOVERY MATERIALS AS CONFIDENTIAL 4 A. Marking Protected Documents. 5 1. Protected documents shall be designated as containing Confidential Information by 6 affixing to them the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” in all caps, at 7 least 10-point bold font, in a location that makes the designation readily apparent, preferably in the 8 lower left-hand corner. The fact that a document is stamped “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes 9 Only” by one party shall not be construed as an admission by any other party that such document is 10 Confidential Information, nor shall it limit or preclude the right of any party to object to the 11 designation and to file any appropriate motion(s) to determine the propriety of such designation. 12 2. A party designating documents as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall prepare and serve on 13 the other parties hereto a log that identifies each designated document by bates stamp or other unique 14 identifier and specifies how the disclosure of the document “would create a substantial risk of serious 15 harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means” within seven (7) days after such 16 designation.

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

Thompson v. Tesla Motors Inc, (D. Nev. 2023).

Thompson v. Tesla Motors Inc (Thompson v. Tesla Motors Inc) — 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)