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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 7, 2026·No. 2:26-cv-02999·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

SERVICES USA, LLC et al.,

Defendant(s).

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. 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 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. 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Diana M. Kwok’s 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve documents related to an ongoing criminal investigation by Non-Party State of California, acting by and through California Highway Patrol (CHP), which contain information that is generally unavailable to the public and/or privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statues, court rules, case decisions, or common law. CHP may also be producing documents that contain information concerning its confidential internal policies which are generally unavailable to the public. The disclosure of this information may jeopardize the security of CHP’s operations and jeopardize the safety of peace officers. CHP may also be producing documents that contain personal and confidential information regarding individuals which information is generally unavailable to the public, including peace officer personnel records and records related to third parties. The disclosure of this information to the public may violate those individuals’ privacy rights. CHP may also be producing video, audio and still photo images related to the incident at issue in this case, which are generally unavailable to the public. In addition, CHP may be producing investigation reports which are generally unavailable to the public, the disclosure of which could violate individuals’ privacy rights, jeopardize the safety of officers, and jeopardize the integrity of the ongoing criminal investigation. 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 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. In addition, this Action may involve the production of confidential, proprietary, or commercially sensitive information by other Parties or Non-Parties, including any Non-Party that may be subpoenaed in connection with this Action. Such information may include, without limitation, proprietary commercial or financial information and nonpublic customer or account data, the disclosure of which could cause competitive or other injury. Accordingly, and for the same reasons set forth above, good cause exists for this Order to extend equally to such material upon proper designation in accordance with the terms below. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. 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; Local Rule 79-5 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 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. 2.7 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. 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in

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

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

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.) — 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)
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)