Summary
This document is a proposed stipulated protective order, subsequently marked as so ordered, governing the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential discovery materials in a federal class action. The order applies to the action Russell et al. v. Dave Inc. et al., pending in the Central District of California, and includes an acknowledgment form for persons receiving protected material.
Holdings
- The court entered the stipulated protective order because discovery was likely to involve confidential, proprietary, private, and potentially privileged information warranting protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
- Material designated CONFIDENTIAL may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle the action and may be disclosed only to the categories of persons and under the conditions specified in the protective order.
- A party or nonparty may challenge a confidentiality designation, but the designating party bears the burden of persuasion and the material remains protected under the designation until the court resolves the challenge.
- The protective order does not itself authorize filing confidential material under seal; a party must comply with Central District of California Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of the specific material.
- The protective-order protections generally do not extend beyond commencement of trial for court-filed information introduced at trial, and after final disposition of the action receiving parties must return or destroy protected material upon written request within the period specified by the order, subject to archival-copy provisions.
Questions Presented
- Whether good cause existed to enter a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery material.
- What procedures and limitations should govern designation, access, use, challenge, filing, retention, and final disposition of protected discovery material.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (1)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…