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.

Eric Clarke, Individually, and On Behalf of Other Members of the General v. First Transit

May 6, 2011

ERIC CLARKE, INDIVIDUALLY, AND ON BEHALF OF OTHER MEMBERS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
FIRST TRANSIT, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; FIRST TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY; FIRSTGROUP AMERICA, INC.; A FLORIDA CORPORATION; FIRST TRANSIT, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN, FIRST TRANSIT TRANSPORTATION, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN; FIRSTGROUP AMERICA COMPANY, A BUSINESS ENTITY FORM UNKNOWN; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge

PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE PARTIES' STIPULATION

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on the parties' Stipulated For Protective Order ("Stipulation") filed on March 17, 2011, the terms of the protective order to which the parties have agreed are adopted as a protective order of this Court (which generally shall govern the pretrial phase of this action) except to the extent, as set forth below, that those terms have been substantively modified by the Court's amendment of Paragraphs 10, 12, 13, 17, and 18 of the Stipulation.

The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential," or other designation(s) used by the parties, does not, in and of itself, create any entitlement to file such information, document, or thing, in whole or in part, under seal. Accordingly, reference to this Protective Order or to the parties' designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential," or other designation(s) used by the parties, is wholly insufficient to warrant a filing under seal.

There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. The parties' mere designation of any information, document, or thing as "Confidential," or other designation(s) used by parties,does not - without the submission of competent evidence, in the form of a declaration or declarations, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable - constitute good cause.

Further, if sealing is requested in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, as opposed to good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration.

Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectible in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectible portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Protective Order, in the event that this case proceeds to trial, all information, documents, and things discussed or introduced into evidence at trial will become public and available to all members of the public, including the press, unless sufficient cause is shown in advance of trial to proceed otherwise.

THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO REVIEW CAREFULLY AND ACT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL ORDERS ISSUED BY THE HONORABLE GARY A. FEESS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE, INCLUDING THOSE APPLICABLE TO PROTECTIVE ORDERS AND THE TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.

TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

Scope

1. This Protective Order shall govern all documents produced or disclosed in this action by either party (the "Designating Party") to the other party ("the Receiving Party").

Confidential Information

2. "Confidential Information" means any information contained in a document that is stamped "Confidential." Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to:

(a) Information about current, past, or prospective employees that is of a confidential or private nature, including, but not limited to, current or former employees' names and contact information, wage information, medical information and job performance-related documentation; or (b) Proprietary, confidential or sensitive company business information.

3. Stamping "Confidential" on the cover of a multiple page document shall classify all pages of the document as confidential unless otherwise indicated by the disclosing party. Marking or stamping "Confidential Information" on a label on any electronic storage medium shall designate the ...


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.