Wheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedJuly 20, 2023
Docket1:22-cv-01524
StatusUnknown

This text of Wheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc. (Wheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 Julian Burns King, SBN 298617 julian@kingsiegel.com 2 Rachael E. Sauer, SBN 308549 rsauer@kingsiegel.com 3 KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 S. Spring Street, Suite 201 4 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: 213-465-4802 5 Facsimile: 213-465-4803

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff STEVE WHEAT 7 JAMES T. CONLEY, SBN 224174 james.conley@ogletree.com 8 HAIDY M. RIVERA, SBN 322117 haidy.rivera@ogletree.com 9 OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 10 500 Capitol Mall, Suite 2500 Sacramento, CA 95814 11 Telephone: 916-840-3150 Facsimile: 916-840-3159 12 Attorneys for Defendant 13 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. 14 UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT 15 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 STEVE WHEAT, Case No. 1:22-cv-01524-BAM

18 Plaintiff, STIPULATION REGARDING PRODUCTION OF CONFIDENTIAL 19 DOCUMENTS AND PROPRIETARY vs. INFORMATION; ORDER 20 WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., a Delaware

Corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 21 Action Filed: October 27, 2022 Defendant. 22 Trial Date: October 7, 2024 23 24 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff STEVE WHEAT (“Plaintiff”) and 25 Defendant WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC., (“Defendant”), through their respective attorneys of 26 record, that a Protective Order be entered by this Court as follows: 27 This Stipulation and Protective Order shall be applicable to and shall apply to the production 28 1 interrogatories, depositions, request for admissions and responses to requests for admissions, 2 exhibits, pleadings, and all other information exchanged and furnished in this action by the parties 3 that are confidential and/or proprietary. 4 I. SCOPE 5 (a) The parties acknowledge that discovery will require disclosure of information that is 6 private and personal or confidential and proprietary, and may include personnel records, medical 7 records, personnel policies, employment offers, trade secrets, competitive analyses, income 8 statements, client or customer information, and financial records and statements, along with other 9 proprietary or confidential information. As a result, the parties agree that they will be required to 10 enter into a Protective Order on the following terms to ensure the continuing confidentiality of such 11 information. The parties further acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on 12 all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends only to the limited 13 information or items that are entitled under the applicable legal principles to treatment as 14 confidential. 15 (b) This Protective Order shall limit the use or disclosure of documents, deposition 16 testimony, and related information which are or which embody or disclose any information 17 designated hereunder as “Confidential,” and shall apply to: 18 (i) All such documents, including those from third parties, so designated in 19 accordance with this Protective Order and legal standards and definitions, and all information 20 contained therein; 21 (ii) Portions of deposition testimony and transcripts and exhibits thereto which 22 include, refer to, or relate to any Confidential Information; 23 (iii) All information, copies, extracts, and complete or partial summaries prepared 24 or derived from Confidential Information; and 25 (iv) Portions of briefs, memoranda, or any writings filed with or otherwise 26 supplied to the Court, which include or refer to any such Confidential Information. 27 (c) Any person designating documents, testimony, or other information as “Confidential” 28 1 which is not otherwise available to the public generally. Each party or non-party that designates 2 information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to 3 specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. A designating party must take care 4 to designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written 5 communications that qualify so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or 6 communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit 7 of this Order. 8 II. DESIGNATION OF DOCUMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS 9 (a) Designation of a document as “Confidential” shall be made by stamping or writing 10 CONFIDENTIAL on the document(s). The parties shall make every effort to designate as 11 CONFIDENTIAL only documents that contain information protected as confidential under 12 California law, including but not limited to, proprietary information, financial information, trade 13 secrets, personnel, medical and payroll information, or other similarly protected information. The 14 failure to so designate documents at the time of production shall not constitute a waiver of the 15 protection of this Order and any party may, at any time during the course of the action up to 30 days 16 before the actual trial date designate any documents or information produced as confidential that 17 have not as yet been so designated. 18 (b) Designation of a deposition or other pretrial testimony, or portions thereof, as 19 “Confidential” shall be made by a statement on the record by counsel for the party or other person 20 making the claim of confidentiality at the time of such testimony. The portions of depositions so 21 designated as “Confidential” shall be taken only in the presence of persons qualified to receive such 22 information pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order: the parties and their attorneys and staff, 23 the court reporter, videographer, the deponent, and the deponent’s attorney. Failure of any other 24 person to comply with a request to leave the deposition room will constitute sufficient justification 25 for the witness to refuse to answer any question calling for disclosure of Confidential Information so 26 long as persons not entitled by this Protective Order to have access to such information are in 27 attendance. The parties shall instruct the court reporter to segregate such portions of the deposition 28 1 clearly marked as “Confidential” on the cover or on each page, as appropriate. 2 (c) Any party may designate documents produced or portions of depositions taken as 3 containing Confidential Information even if not initially marked as “Confidential” in accordance 4 with the terms of this Protective Order by so advising counsel for each other party in writing and by 5 reproducing said documents with the required confidential designation. Thereafter each such 6 document or transcript shall be treated in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order; 7 provided, however, that there shall be no liability for any disclosure or use of such documents or 8 transcripts, or the Confidential Information contained therein, which occurred prior to actual receipt 9 of such written notice. Any person who receives actual notice of any such designation of previously 10 produced documents or deposition transcripts as containing Confidential Information shall thereafter 11 treat such information as if it had been designated as “Confidential” at the time he, she, or it first 12 received it in connection with this matter. 13 (d) Inadvertent failure to designate Confidential Information shall not be construed as a 14 waiver, in whole or in part, and may be corrected by the producing party designating document 15 produced or portions of depositions taken as containing Confidential Information even if not initially 16 marked as “Confidential” in accordance with the terms of this Protective Order and, specifically, 17 Paragraph 2, subsection (c), above. 18 III.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wheat v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wheat-v-wal-mart-associates-inc-caed-2023.