Wanderer v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 10, 2019·No. 2:18-cv-02898·Unknown

Opinion

1 M micichhaaeel lE.b. rBewreewr@er bakermckenzie.com 2 Baker & McKenzie LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 11th Floor 3 San Francisco, CA 94111-3802 Telephone: +1 415 576 3000 4 Facsimile: +1 415 576 3099 5 Attorneys for Defendant KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE WEST CO. 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 STEPHEN WANDERER, as an individual and No. 2:18-cv-02898-WBS-DB in his representative capacity, 11 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE WEST CO.; and 14 DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 17 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 18 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 19 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 20 the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 21 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 22 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 23 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 24 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth below, that this Stipulated 25 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Eastern District 26 Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 27 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 28 1 1.1 Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), the types of information eligible 2 for protection include a Party’s trade secrets, confidential, competitive, or proprietary information 3 pertaining to the Party’s business, its employment practices, and/or its employees, which the Party 4 takes appropriate efforts to keep confidential, or information the party is otherwise required to keep 5 confidential by agreement or law. 6 1.2 Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 141(c)(2), there is need to protect a Party’s 7 trade secrets, confidential, competitive, or proprietary information pertaining to the Party’s business 8 and/or employment practices because such information could be misused and abused if its use were 9 not limited to this lawsuit. 10 1.3 Pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 141(c)(3), the parties seek a Protective Order 11 rather than entering into a private agreement because the Proposed Order is a discovery Order of the 12 Court that sets forth procedures for resolving disputes between the Parties and appropriate 13 mechanisms for handling CONFIDENTIAL information that involve the Court. 14 Nothing in this Protective Order shall be construed as an admission as to the relevance, 15 authenticity, foundation, or admissibility of any document, material, transcript, or other information. 16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 18 information or items under this Order. 19 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 20 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 21 Civil Procedure 26(c). 22 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 23 as their support staff). 24 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 25 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 27 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 28 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 1 discovery in this matter. 2 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 3 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 4 consultant in this action. 5 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 6 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 7 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 8 entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action 10 but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on 11 behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 12 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 13 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 14 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 15 Material in this action. 16 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 17 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, 18 storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 19 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 22 Producing Party. 23 3. SCOPE 24 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as 25 defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all 26 copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 27 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 28 However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 1 information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving 2 Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of 3 publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record 4 through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the 5 disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the 6 information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of 7 Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 8 4. DURATION 9 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this 10 Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order 11 otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 12 defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after the completion 13 and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the 14 time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 15 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 16 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party or 17 Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to 18 limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards.

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

Wanderer v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co., (E.D. Cal. 2019).

Wanderer v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co. (Wanderer v. Kiewit Infrastructure West Co.) — 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)