Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Juan Moreyra, As An Individual and On Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings

January 5, 2011

JUAN MOREYRA, AS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ON BEHALF OF OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE HOLDINGS, INC. D/B/A
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA, A NEW YORK CORPORATION;
BIO-MEDICAL APPLICATIONS OF MISSION HILLS, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; FRESENIUS MEDICAL CARE NORTH AMERICA HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, A DELAWARE LIMITED PARTNERSHIP; AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE; DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Ralph Zarefsky United States District Magistrate Judge

[PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING THE EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL

LA:282477.4

WHEREAS, the parties agreed to and filed a Stipulated Protective Order and [Proposed] Order with the Court on September 22, 2010 (Dkt. No. 34), and filed a revised Stipulated Protective Order regarding the same on September 27, 2010 (Dkt. No. 35);

WHEREAS, the Court denied the parties' Stipulated Protective Order on September 30, 2010, on the basis that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) requires a good cause showing, based on particular and specific demonstration of fact, for entry of a protective order (Dkt. No. 36);

WHEREAS, the parties respectfully seek to address and correct any deficiencies in their previous Stipulated Protective Order;

WHEREAS, litigants frequently seek, and courts routinely grant Stipulated Protective Orders in order to facilitate discovery and to enable the parties to protect their confidential, proprietary, and/or trade secret information, see, e.g., Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003) ("Among the goals furthered by protective orders is reducing conflict over discovery and facilitating the flow of information through discovery.") (quoting 8 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2044.1 (2d ed. 1994)); Tumbling v. Merced Irrigation Dist., 262 F.R.D. 509, 514 (E.D. Cal. 2009) ("Protective orders provide a safeguard for parties and other persons in light of the otherwise broad reach of discovery.") (citing United States v. CBS, Inc., 666 F.2d 364, 368-69 (9th Cir. 1982));

WHEREAS, courts have found good cause to enter into Stipulated Protective Orders where the parties represent that they may disclose third party confidential information, or confidential, trade secret, or proprietary information during the course of discovery, see, e.g., Houdini, Inc. v. Goody Baskets, L.L.C., No. CV-04-9574, 2005 WL 6070180 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 3, 2005);

WHEREAS, pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have stipulated to the procedures set forth below regarding the use of material disclosed as part of the discovery process in this case; and

WHEREAS, the procedures set forth below are in compliance with the local rules regarding the filing of documents under seal and do not alter the requirement of a particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm for sealing documents filed with the Court, see, e.g., Foltz, 331 F.3d 1122; Young v. Actions Semiconductor Co., Ltd., Civil No. 06cv1667-L(AJB), 2007 WL 2177028, at *3 (S.D. Cal. July 27, 2007) (entering a blanket protective order prior to production of documents, which is "not uncommon," but requiring the parties to make "good cause" showing under Rule 26(c) when attempting to file documents under seal);

GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT

WHEREAS, the parties submit that GOOD CAUSE EXISTS in this case for the issuance of this Stipulated Protective Order Regarding the Exchange of Confidential Material ("Stipulated Protective Order") for the following reasons:

* Plaintiff Juan Moreyra ("Plaintiff"), a former employee of Defendant Bio-Medical Applications of Mission Hills, Inc. ("BMAMH"), brought this lawsuit initially against BMAMH and affiliated entities Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Fresenius Medical Care North America ("FMCNA"), and Fresenius Medical Care North America Limited Partnership; on August 2, 2010, the Court granted the parties' stipulation to dismiss Fresenius Medical Care North America Limited Partnership (Dkt. No. 27); and on November 16, 2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 41) naming the following defendants FMCNA, BMAMH, National Medical Care, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Long Beach, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of California, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Camarillo, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Carson, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Eureka, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Fremont, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Fresno, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Glendora, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Los Gatos, Inc., Bio-Medical Applications of Oakland, Inc., BioMedical Applications of Ukiah, Inc., Conejo Valley Dialysis, Inc., San Diego Dialysis Services, Inc., and Santa Barbara Community Dialysis Center, Inc. ("Defendants") on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, alleging violations of California Labor Code sections 226.7, 227.3, 226, failure to pay overtime, and violation of California Business & Professions Code section 17200 et. seq.;

* On behalf of all putative class members, Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid meal break premiums, unpaid overtime compensation, waiting time penalties, vested vacation wages, and their attorneys' fees and costs;

* Plaintiff propounded his first set of document requests and interrogatories to Defendants on July 17, 2010 and his second set of document requests and interrogatories on November 5, 2010 seeking, among other things:

(i) documents containing private and personal, employment, and financial information of individual persons, for both parties and non-parties, including but not limited to --personnel and payroll documents which contains these individuals' employment history with Defendants, personal contact information, birthdates, medical information, job performance, payroll information, itemized wage statements, and time records;

(ii) nonpublic, confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive and/or trade secret information pertaining to Defendants' financial databases which contain confidential information regarding employees' wages and payroll data;

(iii) documents reflecting Defendant's confidential, proprietary, and commercially sensitive policies, practices and procedures, relating to human resources and general business operations; and

(iv) names, addresses, and telephone numbers of Defendants' current and former employees.

* Disclosure of the above-referenced documents and information to persons who are not entitled to such information carries the danger of compromising the competitive business interests of the parties in the above-entitled action, and also risks invasion ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.