Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC

District Court, E.D. California·Decided July 15, 2020·No. 2:18-cv-02768·Unknown

Opinion

JUSTIN D. BALSER (SBN 213478) Email: justin.balser@akerman.com NATALIE L. WINSLOW (SBN 281704) Email: natalie.winslow@akerman.com 601 West Fifth Street, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 688-9500 Facsimile: (213) 627-6342

Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimants NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC dba MR. COOPER f/k/a Centex Home Equity Co. LLC and BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON f/k/a THE BANK OF NEW YORK as successor in interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for Centex Home Equity Loan Trust 2005-A

DENISE WALLACE, No. 2:18-cv-02768-JAM-DB

Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER AND ORDER v.

Individually and dba MR. COOPER, THE BANK OF NEW YORK FIRM and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants. Defendants Nationstar Mortgage LLC dba Mr. Cooper f/k/a/ Centex Home Equity Co. LLC (Nationstar) and Bank of New York Mellon f/k/a/ the Bank of New York as successor in interest to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Trustee for the Centex Home Equity Loan Trust 2006-A (BoNYM, and together with Nationstar, defendants) and plaintiff Denise Wallace by and through their attorneys of record, stipulate to the following Protective Order: To expedite the flow of discovery, facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality, adequately protect material claimed to be confidential, and ensure protection is afforded only to material so designated, it is, pursuant to the Court's authority under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c), ORDERED this Protective Order shall govern the disclosure, handling and disposition of documents in this litigation as follows: 1. Application. 1.1 This Protective Order shall govern any document, information or other material that is designated as containing "Confidential Information" as defined herein, and is produced in connection with this litigation by any person or entity (the "producing party"), whether in response to a discovery request, subpoena or otherwise, to any other person or entity (the "receiving party") regardless of whether the person or entity producing or receiving such information is a party to this litigation. 1.2 The party who asserts that particular information should be treated as Confidential Information under this Protective Order has the burden of proof to establish that the information or document is entitled to such protection. 2. Definitions. 2.1 Confidential Information. "Confidential Information" shall mean and include, without limitation, any non-public information that concerns or relates to the following areas: personal information protected by a right to privacy, individual health information, including but not limited to medical records, individual treatment records, and individual mental health treatment information, confidential proprietary information, trade secrets, practices and procedures, personal financial information, commercial, financial, pricing, budgeting, and/or accounting information, information about existing and potential customers, marketing studies, performance projections, business strategies, decisions and/or negotiations, personnel compensation, evaluations and other employment information, and confidential proprietary information about affiliates, parents, subsidiaries and third-parties with whom the parties to this action have or have had business relationships. 2.2 Documents. As used herein, the term "documents" includes all writings, records, files, drawings, graphs, charts, photographs, e-mails, video tapes, audio tapes, compact discs, electronic messages, other data compilations from which information can be obtained and other tangible things subject to production under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Initial Designation. 3.1 Good Faith Claims. Claims of confidentiality will be made only with respect to documents, other tangible things and information that the asserting party has a good faith belief are within the definition set forth in subparagraph 2.1 of this Protective Order. Objections to such claims made pursuant to paragraph 5, below, shall also be made only in good faith. 3.2 Produced Documents. A party producing documents that it believes constitute or contain Confidential Information shall state that the material is being produced under this Protective Order by describing the documents or materials to be treated as confidential in writing, by page or bates number wherever possible and/or shall produce copies bearing a label that contains or includes language substantially identical to the following: This label shall be affixed in a manner that does not obliterate or obscure the contents of the copies. If any person or party makes copies of documents designated as containing Confidential Information, the copying person or party shall mark each such copy as containing Confidential Information in the same form as the Confidentiality notice on the original document. A party producing documents that are stored on electronic, magnetic, optical or other non-paper media, such as compact discs, DVD's, video tapes and audio tapes (collectively, "data storage devices") shall designate the data storage device as containing Confidential Information, by affixing a label or stamp to the data storage device in the manner described above at the time copies of such data storage devices are produced. If the receiving party or other persons or entities to whom disclosure is authorized pursuant to subparagraph 7.1 make a copy of any data storage device designated by the producing party as containing Confidential Information, the receiving party or other authorized person shall mark each such copy as containing Confidential Information in the same form as the confidentiality notice on the original data storage device produced. If the receiving party or other authorized person prints out or otherwise makes copies of the documents or information stored on such data storage device, the receiving party or other authorized person shall mark each page so copied with the label or stamp specified in subparagraph 3.2. 3.3 Interrogatory Answers. If a party answering an interrogatory or other discovery demand believes that its answer contains Confidential Information, it shall state so in the interrogatory response, and that portion of the response will be entitled to the protections of this order. 3.4 Inspection of Documents. In the event a party elects to produce files and records for inspection and the requesting party elects to inspect them, no designation of Confidential Information needs to be made in advance of the inspection. For purposes of such inspection, all material produced shall be considered as Confidential Information. If the inspecting party selects specified documents to be copied, the producing party shall designate Confidential Information in accordance with subparagraph 3.2 at the time the copies are produced. 3.5 Deposition Transcripts. The party asserting confidentiality shall state on the record the portions it deems confidential. The failure to designate testimony on the record as confidential shall be a waiver unless the designating party notifies all other parties and files a motion to designate the testimony as confidential within 5 days of the notification. 3.6 Inadvertent Failure to Designate. Inadvertent failure to identify documents or things as "Confidential" pursuant to this Protective Order shall not constitute a waiver of any otherwise valid claim for protection, provided that the provisions of this paragraph are satisfied. If the designating party discovers that information should have but was not designated "Confidential" or of the designating party receives notice that would enable the designated party to learn that it has disclosed such information, the designating party must immediately notify all other parties. In such

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

Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC (Wallace v. Nationstar Mortgage LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)