Cristine Wick v. Everbridge, Inc. and Does 1–50

No. 2:25-cv-5333-CV-JC (C.D. Cal. Jan. 16, 2026) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · January 16, 2026 · No. 2:25-cv-5333-CV-JC

Summary

This document is a stipulation and proposed protective order in Cristine Wick v. Everbridge, Inc., a federal civil action in the Central District of California. It governs the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential and highly confidential discovery materials, including procedures for inadvertent production of privileged information.

Court
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Writing for the Court
Jacqueline Chooljian
Jurisdiction
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Decision date
January 16, 2026
Docket number
2:25-cv-5333-CV-JC
Procedural posture
The parties stipulated to and proposed entry of a protective order governing confidential and highly confidential discovery material. The magistrate judge ordered the protective order entered as modified.
Precedential value
nonprecedential
Parties
Cristine Wick v. Everbridge, Inc., Does 1–50
Disposition
other

Topics

discovery disputecivil procedurecommercial litigationcommercial

Practice areas

civil procedurediscoverycommercial litigationconfidentiality

Questions Presented

  1. Whether good cause supported entry of a protective order governing confidential and highly confidential discovery material.
  2. What procedures should govern designation, use, disclosure, challenge, sealing, inadvertent production, and final disposition of protected discovery material.
  3. Whether the protective order should preserve the parties' obligations under Federal Rule of Evidence 502 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B).

Holdings

  1. The court entered a protective order, as modified, limiting the use and disclosure of discovery material designated as confidential or highly confidential to purposes and persons authorized by the order.
  2. A designation of discovery material as confidential or highly confidential does not itself authorize filing the material under seal; a party must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of the specific material.
  3. The party designating discovery material as confidential bears the burden of persuasion in a challenge to that designation.
  4. Inadvertent disclosure or production of privileged or work-product-protected material does not waive the applicable privilege or protection in this action or another federal or state proceeding, subject to the procedures specified in the order.

Key quotations

This Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. (at 1)
There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. (at 3)
The burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding will be on the Designating Party. (at 7)
the inadvertent disclosure or production of privileged or work-product-protected documents, electronically stored information (“ESI”), or other information, does not constitute a waiver of privilege or protection from discovery in this Action or in any other federal or state proceeding (at 16)

Factual background

The litigation is expected to involve confidential, proprietary, private, commercial, financial, technical, personnel, customer, sales, research, development, and personal-identifying information. The parties sought an order limiting the use and disclosure of such discovery materials, establishing procedures for confidentiality designations and challenges, and protecting inadvertently produced privileged material. The court entered the stipulated order as modified.

Procedural history

The order was entered during discovery in a pending federal civil action after the parties submitted a stipulated proposed protective order. The court made changes to paragraphs 1, 5, 8.2, 10, 11(c), 14.3, and 15, and ordered the modified protective order.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…