Tommy T. Lor v. FCA US LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 2, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-08216·Unknown

Opinion

1 EELmIaZilA: BemEcTnHu lVty.@ MeCfsNmUmLlaTwY. c(oSmB N 192455) 2 CHRISTOPHER J. WALDON (SBN 310179) Email: cwaldon@efsmmlaw.com 3 CHRISTINA M. TROTZ (SBN 354732) Email: ctrotz@efsmmlaw.com 4 EVANS FEARS SCHUTTERT MCNULTY MICKUS 1 Park Plaza, Suite 500 5 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 484-7488 6 Facsimile: (949) 966-0706 7 Attorneys for Defendant FCA US LLC 8

9 Tionna Carvalho (SBN 299010) tcarvalho@slpattorney.com 10 Elizabeth Larocque (SBN 219977) 11 elarocque@slpattorney.com STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES 12 1888 Century Park East, 19th Floor 13 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 929-4900 14 Facsimile: (310) 943-3838 15 emailservices@slpattorney.com 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff TOMMY T. LOR 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19

20 TOMMY T. LOR, CASE NO: 2:24−cv−08216 WLH (SSCx)

21 Plaintiff, District Judge: Hon. Wesley L. Hsu Magistrate Judge: Hon. Stephanie S. 22 vs. Christensen

23 FCA US LLC; and DOES 1 to 10, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE inclusive, ORDER 24 Defendants. Superior Ct. Complaint Filed: 08/22/2024 25 Trial Date: 11/3/2025 26 27 28 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely 3 to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information 4 for 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 7 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 8 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 9 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 10 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 11 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 12 legal 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 17 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 18 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 19 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 20 confidential business or financial information, information regarding 21 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 22 development, or commercial information (including information 23 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 24 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 25 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 26 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 27 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 28 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 1 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 2 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 3 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 4 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 5 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 6 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 7 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 8 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 9 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 10 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 11 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 12 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 13 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 14 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 15 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 16 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 17 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 18 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 19 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 20 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 21 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 22 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 23 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 24 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 25 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material 26 that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 27 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 28 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 1 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 2 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 3 cause. 4 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 5 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 6 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 7 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 8 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 9 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 10 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 11 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 12 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 13 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 14 seal must be provided by declaration. 15 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 16 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 17 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a 18 redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, 19 privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 20 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 21 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit]. 24 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 25 designation of information or items under this Order. 26 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 27 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 28 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules 1 of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 3 well as their support staff). 4 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 5 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 6 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 8 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 9 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 10 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 11 responses to discovery in this matter. 12 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 13 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 14 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this 15 Action.

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

Tommy T. Lor v. FCA US LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Tommy T. Lor v. FCA US LLC (Tommy T. Lor v. FCA US LLC) — 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)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)