VYACHESLAV FINOGEYEV, et. al. v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC et al.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 7, 2026
Docket2:26-cv-02999
StatusUnknown

This text of VYACHESLAV FINOGEYEV, et. al. v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC et al. (VYACHESLAV FINOGEYEV, et. al. v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC et al.) 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
VYACHESLAV FINOGEYEV, et. al. v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC et al., (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 VYACHESLAV FINOGEYEV, Case No. 2:26-cv-02999-WLH- 5 et. al., DMK 6 Plaintiff(s), 7 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 8 MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL ORDER1

9 SERVICES USA, LLC et al.,

10 Defendant(s).

11 12 1. INTRODUCTION 13 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 14 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 15 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 16 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 17 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 18 19 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 20 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 21 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 22 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 23 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 24 legal principles. 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Diana M. Kwok’s 1 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve 2 documents related to an ongoing criminal investigation by Non-Party 3 State of California, acting by and through California Highway Patrol 4 (CHP), which contain information that is generally unavailable to the 5 public and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 6 state or federal statues, court rules, case decisions, or common law. CHP 7 may also be producing documents that contain information concerning 8 its confidential internal policies which are generally unavailable to the 9 public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of 10 CHP’s operations and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. CHP may 11 also be producing documents that contain personal and confidential 12 information regarding individuals which information is generally 13 unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records and 14 records related to third parties. The disclosure of this information to the 15 public may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. CHP may also be 16 producing video, audio and still photo images related to the incident at 17 issue in this case, which are generally unavailable to the public. In 18 addition, CHP may be producing investigation reports which are 19 generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could violate 20 individuals’ privacy rights, jeopardize the safety of officers, and 21 22 jeopardize the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation. 23 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 24 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 25 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 26 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 27 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 1 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 2 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 3 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 4 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 5 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 6 not be part of the public record of this case. In addition, this Action may 7 involve the production of confidential, proprietary, or commercially 8 sensitive information by other Parties or Non-Parties, including any 9 Non-Party that may be subpoenaed in connection with this Action. Such 10 information may include, without limitation, proprietary commercial or 11 financial information and nonpublic customer or account data, the 12 disclosure of which could cause competitive or other injury. Accordingly, 13 and for the same reasons set forth above, good cause exists for this Order 14 to extend equally to such material upon proper designation in accordance 15 with the terms below. 16 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 17 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 18 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 19 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 20 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 21 22 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 23 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 24 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 25 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 26 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 27 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 1 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 2 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 3 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 4 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 5 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 6 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 7 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 8 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 9 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 11 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 12 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 13 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 14 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 15 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 16 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 17 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 18 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 19 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 20 seal must be provided by declaration. 21 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 23 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 24 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 25 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 26 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 27 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 1 2 2. DEFINITIONS 3 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 5 designation of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 7 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 8 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 9 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as 11 well as their support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 13 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 14 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 16 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 17 18 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 19 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 20 responses to discovery in this matter.

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)
United States v. Caraballo
447 F.3d 26 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
VYACHESLAV FINOGEYEV, et. al. v. MERCEDES-BENZ FINANCIAL SERVICES USA, LLC et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vyacheslav-finogeyev-et-al-v-mercedes-benz-financial-services-usa-llc-cacd-2026.