Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 16, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-01218
StatusUnknown

This text of Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation (Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation) 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
Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — EASTERN DIVISION 10 11 TIMOTHY WEAVER, an individual, Case No. 5:22-cv-01218-DMG (KKx) 12 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO HON. DOLLY M. 13 GEE FOR ALL PURPOSES V. 14 ASSIGNED TO HON. KENLY KIYA TARGET CORPORTION; and DOES 1 KATO FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS 15 | through 50, PROF OSED| ORDER RE: 16 Defendants. TIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 Trial: February 27, 2024 18 Complaint filed in State Court: March 18, 2022, San Bernardino County 19 Supenor Court Case No. CIV S 2206520 20 1V. [BROROSER] ORDER 22 Pursuant to the attached Stipulation of the Parties and for good cause 23 | shown, 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 | Dated: May 16, 2023 Le Ke | | | 17 HON. KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge 28 |} 4864-7165-9108.1 / 052067-1709

1 | Jack Bazerkanian, Bar No. 299031 James Shin, Bar No. 299101 2 | Tiffany Ariavand, Bar No. 331136 C&B LAW GROUP LLP . 3 || 2315 W. Burbank Blvd. Burbank, California 91506 4 || Telephone: 213.986.3430 Fax: 213.986.9860 5 | jack@cblawgroup.com ames(@cblaweroup.com 6 | tillany@cblawgroup.com 7 || Attorneys for Plaintiff TIMOTHY WEAVER 8 9 | Irene V. Fitzgerald, Bar No. 266949 Vanessa M. Cohn, Bar No. 314619 10 || Caroline Lutz, Bar No. 274836 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 11 | 5200. Palm Ave., Ste. 302 Fresno, California 93704 12 | Telephone: 559.244.7500 Fax: 559.244.7525 13 || ifitzgerald@littler.com vcohn(@)littler.com 14 clutz@ littler.com 15 || Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION l 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — EASTERN DIVISION 19 20 | TIMOTHY WEAVER, an individual, Case No. 5:22-cv-01218-DMG (KKx) 21 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO HON. DOLLY M. GEE FOR ALL PURPOSES 22 Vv. ASSIGNED TO HON. KENLY KIYA 23 TARGET CORPORTION; and DOES 1 KATO FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS rou ; 24 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Defendants. ORDER AND [FROPOSED] 25 ORDER THEREON 26 Trial: TBD Complaint filed in State Court: March 27 18, 2022, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIV S 28 2206520

l Pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Civil 2 | Local Rule 7-1, and the Court’s Procedures regarding Stipulated Protective Orders, 3 | Plaintiff TIMOTHY WEAVER (‘Plaintiff’) and Defendant TARGET 4 | CORPORATION (“Defendant”) (collectively, “Plaintiff” and “Defendant” are referred 5 | to as the “Parties” or “Party”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate 6 | and agree to the terms of the following Stipulated Protective Order (the “Agreement”) 7 | governing the discovery and disclosure of confidential information in the above- 8 || captioned action and conditioned upon the issuance of an order thereon. To address 9 | potential concerns over the discovery of confidential information, while at the same 10 || time permitting discovery to proceed as fairly and efficiently as possible, the Parties 11 | enter into this Agreement, and stipulate as follows: 12 I. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER 14 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 15 | proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 16 | and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 17 | Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 18 || Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that any Order granting this 19 | Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 20 || responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 2! || extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 22 | treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS FOR GRANTING THIS STIPULATED 24 PROTECTIVE ORDER 25 This action is likely to involve confidential, proprietary, and private 26 | commercial information and other valuable research, development, commercial, 27 || financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 28 || public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution and defense of

1 | this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 2|| consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 3 || information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 4 || development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 5 | rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 6 || which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 7 | statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow 8 | of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 9 | discovery materials, to adequately protect information the Parties are entitled to keep 10 | confidential, to ensure that the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 11 || material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 12 | end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 13 || information is justified in this matter. 14 It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as 15 || confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 16 || belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 17 | cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Here, the Parties’ 18 || request for a protective order is made for good cause in that it is particularized, specific, 19 || and narrowly tailored to disclosure in this action of certain confidential, proprietary, 20 || and private business information of the Parties and third parties, such as the personnel 21 || records of employees, sales information, data, and strategies, profit and loss data and 22 || information, customer information, process management and policies, and other such 23 | relevant confidential information relevant to this litigation as set forth in Section III.A.2. 24 || herein below. Fed Rules Civ Proc R 26(c)(1)(G); Blankenship v. Hearst Corp., 519 F.2d 25 | 418, 429 (9th Cir. 1975); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1130 26 | (9th Cir. 2003); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th 27 || Cir. 2006); see Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int'l, Inc., 242 FRD 552, 555, fn. 4 28 | (C.D. Cal. 2007). Specifically with respect to personnel records, it is the Parties’

1 | intention that employees of Defendant’s names, dates of employment, disciplinary 2 || histories, reasons for separation or termination, last-known contact information, and 3 | other similar identifying information of a private nature, which would prove to be 4 || embarrassing if publicly available, be safeguarded as “Confidential” under the 5 | requested Stipulated Protective Order. Indeed, haphazard placement of such sensitive 6 | and private information in the public record could result in improper use of the material 7 | for scandalous or libelous purposes as an unintended consequence of this litigation and 8 || undermine the inherent authority of this Court, considerations which greatly outweigh 9 | the public interest in this matter. Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 10 || F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir. 2002); Hagestad v.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
In Re Roman Catholic Archbishop of Portland in Or.
661 F.3d 417 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/timothy-weaver-v-target-corporation-cacd-2023.