Turner v. Amazon.com Services LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided January 24, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-00993·Unknown

Opinion

] ANNA TURNER, Case No. 2:24-cv-00993-DAD-CSK Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MODIFIED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER □ (ECF No. 9) AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, et al., Defendants. The Court has reviewed the parties’ stipulated protective order below (ECF No. 9), and finds it comports with the relevant authorities and the Court’s Local Rule. See L.R. 1141.1. The Court APPROVES the protective order, subject to the following clarification. The Court’s Local Rules indicate that once an action is closed, it “will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement of the terms of any protective order filed in that action.” L.R. 1 141 .1(f); see Bylin Heating Sys., Inc. v. Thermal Techs., Inc., 2012 WL 13237584, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 29, 2012) (noting that courts in the district generally do not retain ! jurisdiction for disputes concerning protective orders after closure of the case). Thus, the Court will not retain jurisdiction over this protective order once the case is closed. Dated: January 23, 2025 (XR Spo GHI 500 KIM 4, turnos93.24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Douglas E. Dexter (State Bar No. 115868) ddexter@fbm.com Jaya B. Narang (State Bar No. 317909) jbnarang@fbm.com Jacqueline M. Gerson (State Bar No. 351165) jgerson@fbm.com Farella Braun + Martel LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, California 94104 Telephone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480

Attorneys for Defendant AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION ANNA TURNER, as an Individual, Case No. 24-cv-00993-DAD-CSK

Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER vs.

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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, Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Services LLC (collectively “Amazon” or “Defendants”) and Plaintiff Anna Turner (“Plaintiff”) (collectively, “the parties”), by and through their counsel of record, hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. As detailed in Paragraph 3, this Protective Order will provide protection for materials in records, employees’ personnel records, and documents reflecting disciplinary action taken towards employees. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts and investigators, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The types of information eligible for protection under this Stipulation and Order include but are not limited to the following: Plaintiff’s medical records, third party personnel records, and communications and documents containing proprietary and/or financial information. Courts have routinely recognized a legally cognizable privacy interest in records of this nature. See e.g., Doe v. A. J. Boggs & Co., No. 118CV01464AWIBAM, 2019 WL 1517567, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019) (citing Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 440 (1996)) (ordering discovery of Plaintiffs’ medical information as subject to protective order because “California law recognizes a constitutional right to privacy in an individual’s medical history”); Buchanan v. Santos, No. 1:08-CV-01174-AWI, 2011 WL 2112475, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2011) (ordering discovery of personnel records as subject to protective order); Sanchez v. Cty. of Sacramento Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 2:19-CV-01545 MCE AC, 2020 WL 3542328, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 2020) (ordering discovery of personnel records as subject to protective order). The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of Protected Material

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

Turner v. Amazon.com Services LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Turner v. Amazon.com Services LLC (Turner v. Amazon.com Services LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pettus v. Cole
49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (California Court of Appeal, 1996)