U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Michelle Beverly

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 25, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00218
StatusUnknown

This text of U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Michelle Beverly (U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Michelle Beverly) 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
U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Michelle Beverly, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 STUBBS ALDERTON & MARKILES, LLP Daniel A. Rozansky (SBN 161647) 2 drozansky@stubbsalderton.com John De La Merced (SBN 303060) 3 jdelamerced@stubbsalderton.com Renee M. Moulton (SBN 353065) 4 rmoulton@stubbsalderton.com 15260 Ventura Blvd., 20th Floor 5 Sherman Oaks, California 91403 Telephone: (818) 444-4548 6 Facsimile: (818) 444-6352

7 Attorneys for Plaintiff U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC. 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, EASTERN DIVISION 11

13 U.S. LEGAL SUPPORT, INC., a Texas Case No.: 5:25-cv-00218-SSS-SPx Corporation, 14 DISCOVERY MATTER Plaintiff, 15 v. 16 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE MICHELLE BEVERLY, an individual; ORDER 17 DEPOSITION SOLUTIONS LLC d/b/a LEXITAS, a Texas Limited Liability 18 Company; and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Judge: Hon. Sunshine Suzanne Sykes 19 Magistrate Judge: Hon. Sheri Pym Defendants. 20

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 The Parties, through their undersigned counsel of record, and subject to the 2 Court’s approval, hereby stipulate to the entry of a Protective Order in this action as 3 follows: 4 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 6 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 7 and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 8 Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to, and petition the Court to enter the 9 following Stipulated Protective Order. The Parties acknowledge that this Protective 10 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 11 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 12 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 13 applicable legal principles. 14 A Party’s designation of information as protected material constitutes a 15 representation that such materials have been reviewed by Counsel and there is a good 16 faith basis for such designation. Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed 17 as limiting a Party’s use of its own Highly Confidential or Confidential information. 18 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 19 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer pricing lists, and other 20 valuable financial proprietary information for which special protection from public 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 22 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 23 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 24 regarding confidential business practices. 25 Specifically, good cause exists to designate certain documents as “HIGHLY 26 CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSELS’ EYES ONLY” where a Designating 27 Party and/or its counsel may have a good faith belief that the documents contain 28 information that is among the most sensitive by the party, including but not limited to 1 trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial or other 2 commercial information, and that such information must be shielded from anyone 3 within a competitor company, including in-house counsel, who might be involved in 4 “competitive decision-making” for the competitor company. See U.S. Steel Corp v. 5 U.S., 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 (Fed Cir. 1984); see also Brown Bag Software v. Symantec 6 Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (1992). 7 Additionally, good cause also exists to designate certain documents as 8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” where a Designating 9 Party and/or its counsel may have a good faith belief that the documents contain 10 information that is also among the most sensitive by the party, including but not 11 limited to trade secret or other confidential research, development, financial or other 12 commercial information, but may not require the additional protections afforded for 13 documents designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSELS’ 14 EYES ONLY.” 15 Finally, good cause exists to designate certain documents as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL” where a Designating Party and/or its counsel may have a good 17 faith belief that the unrestricted disclosure of such information in the documents could 18 be potentially prejudicial to the business or operations of the party. 19 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 20 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 21 protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 22 Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 23 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 24 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 25 matter. 26 It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as 27 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 28 1 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is 2 good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 3 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 4 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 5 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 6 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 7 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 8 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 9 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 10 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. 11 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 12 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 14 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 15 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 16 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 17 Parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as HIGHLY 18 CONFIDENTIAL or CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of 19 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 20 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute 21 good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 22 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 23 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 24 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 25 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 26 seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by 27 specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent 28 1 evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 2 declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
City of Philadelphia v. Collector
5 U.S. 720 (Supreme Court, 1866)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
U.S. Legal Support, Inc. v. Michelle Beverly, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-legal-support-inc-v-michelle-beverly-cacd-2025.