Justin Brewer, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., Criteo Corp., and Medallia, Inc.

Brewer v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., No. 2:25-cv-04689-MWC-E (C.D. Cal. Dec. 15, 2025) · United States District Court for the Central District of California · December 15, 2025 · No. 2:25-cv-04689-MWC-E

Summary

This document is a Stipulated Protective Order in Brewer v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc., et al., pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It governs the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential and attorneys’-eyes-only discovery materials, including procedures for expert access and inadvertent disclosure. The order also addresses confidentiality obligations after final disposition and the treatment of protected materials at trial.

Holdings

  1. The court entered the parties' stipulated protective order for good cause shown, governing discovery material that qualifies for confidential treatment under applicable legal principles.
  2. Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle the action and may be disclosed only to persons and under the conditions specified in the protective order.
  3. Designating parties must limit confidentiality designations to material that qualifies for protection, and a party challenging a designation must follow the meet-and-confer and motion procedures required by the applicable local rules; the designating party bears the burden of persuasion.
  4. The protective order does not itself authorize filing material under seal; a party must comply with Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific material.
  5. When a producing party gives notice that inadvertently produced material is privileged or otherwise protected, the receiving parties' obligations are governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B), and production does not waive the privilege or protection under the terms of the order.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether good cause existed to enter a stipulated protective order governing confidential and attorneys-eyes-only discovery material.
  2. What procedures and restrictions should govern the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing under seal, retention, and disposition of protected discovery material.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (4)

  • Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Phillips ex rel. Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999)(followed)
  • Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…