Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 16, 2023·No. 5:22-cv-01218·Unknown

Opinion

] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY WEAVER, an individual, Case No. 5:22-cv-01218-DMG (KKx) Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO HON. DOLLY M. GEE FOR ALL PURPOSES V. ASSIGNED TO HON. KENLY KIYA TARGET CORPORTION; and DOES 1 KATO FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS through 50, PROF OSED| ORDER RE: Defendants. TIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Trial: February 27, 2024 Complaint filed in State Court: March 18, 2022, San Bernardino County Supenor Court Case No. CIV S 2206520 1V. [BROROSER] ORDER Pursuant to the attached Stipulation of the Parties and for good cause shown, | Dated: May 16, 2023 Le Ke | | | HON. KENLY KIYA KATO United States Magistrate Judge } 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 Caroline Lutz, Bar No. 274836 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 5200. Palm Ave., Ste. 302 Fresno, California 93704 Telephone: 559.244.7500 Fax: 559.244.7525 ifitzgerald@littler.com vcohn(@)littler.com clutz@ littler.com Attorneys for Defendant TARGET CORPORATION l CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — EASTERN DIVISION TIMOTHY WEAVER, an individual, Case No. 5:22-cv-01218-DMG (KKx) Plaintiff, ASSIGNED TO HON. DOLLY M. GEE FOR ALL PURPOSES Vv. ASSIGNED TO HON. KENLY KIYA TARGET CORPORTION; and DOES 1 KATO FOR DISCOVERY MATTERS rou ; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Defendants. ORDER AND [FROPOSED] ORDER THEREON Trial: TBD Complaint filed in State Court: March 18, 2022, San Bernardino County Superior Court Case No. CIV S 2206520

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

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

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

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

Timothy Weaver v. Target Corporation (Timothy Weaver v. Target 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)
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)