Woolwine v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedDecember 21, 2022
Docket1:22-cv-00371
StatusUnknown

This text of Woolwine v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company (Woolwine v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company) 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
Woolwine v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 GREG WOOLWINE, Case No. 1:22-cv-00371-ADA-SAB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 v. (ECF No. 12) 14 KRAFT HEINZ FOODS COMPANY, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 19 20 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 23 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 25 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following 26 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 27 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 28 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 1 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 2 set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 3 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 4 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 5 file material under seal. 6 2. DEFINITIONS 7 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 8 information or items under this Order. 9 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 10 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 11 of Civil Procedure 26(c). 12 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 13 well as their support staff). 14 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 15 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 17 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 18 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 19 responses to discovery in this matter. 20 21 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 22 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 23 consultant in this action. 24 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 25 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 26 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 27 entity not named as a Party to this action. 28 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 1 action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this 2 action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of 3 that party. 4 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 5 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 6 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 7 Material in this action. 8 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 9 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 10 organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 11 subcontractors. 12 2.13 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 13 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 14 2.14 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 15 Producing Party. 16 3. SCOPE 17 The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material 18 (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) 19 all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 20 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 21 However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover the following 22 information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a 23 Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as 24 a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the 25 public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party 26 prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who 27 obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating 28 Party. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 1 The types of information eligible for protection under this Stipulation and Order include, 2 without limitation: documents constituting or relating to Plaintiff’s medical records, Plaintiff’s 3 disability, and Plaintiff’s request for accommodation at work; documents constituting or related 4 to employment personnel records of Plaintiff or Defendant’s employees, which is private 5 pursuant to Article 1 Section 1 of the California Constitution; documents constituting or related 6 to Defendant’s confidential policies and/or confidential business records; documents constituting 7 or related to employment investigations regarding Plaintiff and the termination of Plaintiff’s 8 employment. Courts have routinely recognized a legally cognizable privacy interest in records of 9 this nature. See e.g., Doe v. A. J. Boggs & Co., No. 118CV01464AWIBAM, 2019 WL 1517567, 10 at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2019)(citing Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal. App. 4th 402, 440 (1996))(ordering 11 discovery of Plaintiffs’ medical information as subject to protective order because “California 12 law recognizes a constitutional right to privacy in an individual’s medical history”); Buchanan v. 13 Santos, No. 1:08-CV-01174-AWI, 2011 WL 2112475, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2011) (ordering 14 discovery of personnel records as subject to protective order); Sanchez v. Cty. of Sacramento 15 Sheriff’s Dep’t, No. 2:19-CV-01545 MCE AC, 2020 WL 3542328, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 30, 16 2020) (ordering discovery of personnel records as subject to protective order). 17 4. DURATION 18 Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by 19 this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court 20 order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (1) dismissal of all 21 claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment herein after 22 the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this 23 action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time 24 pursuant to applicable law. 25 5. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 26 5.1 Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection. Each Party 27 or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care 28 to 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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Pettus v. Cole
49 Cal. App. 4th 402 (California Court of Appeal, 1996)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Woolwine v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolwine-v-kraft-heinz-foods-company-caed-2022.