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.

Gobeille v. UPS Cartage Services, Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 23, 2013

DENIS GOBEILLE, Plaintiff,
v.
UPS CARTAGE SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants.

CLAUDETTE G. WILSON, (110076), JESSICA A. CHASIN, (214983), MARISSA L. LYFTOGT, (259559), WILSON TURNER KOSMO LLP, San Diego, California, Attorneys for Defendant UPS CARTAGE SERVICES, INC.

GIRARDI KEESE, JOHN A. GIRARDI, (54917), Los Angeles, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff DENIS GOBEILLE.

[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING REVISED JOINT STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

RALPH ZAREFSKY, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to the Revised Joint Stipulation for a Protective Order submitted by Defendant UPS CARTAGE SERVICES, INC. ("Defendant") and Plaintiff DENIS GOBEILLE ("Plaintiff"), the Court finds good cause exists for a Protective Order in this case based on the following relevant facts:

1. In 2007, Congress passed the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act more commonly known as the 9/11 Act. This law requires that all cargo transported on a passenger aircraft be screened for explosives as of August 1, 2010. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) developed the Certified Cargo Screening Program as a solution to help the industry reach the 100 percent screening mandate. The program enables freight forwarders and shippers like Defendant to pre-screen cargo prior to arrival at the airport. Given the highly confidential nature of this program, and the concern that passenger cargo flights may be put in jeopardy if such information is disclosed to the public domain, federal law prohibits the disclosure of any "Sensitive Security Information" as defined by statute. See 49 CFR 15.1, et seq. 29 C.F.R. 1520, et seq.

2. Defendant operates a Certified Cargo Screening Program at its facility in Inglewood, California. Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Senior Supervisor/Facility Services Coordinator at this facility. In this capacity, Plaintiff was responsible for ensuring that cargo was properly screened in accordance with the regulations promulgated by the TSA and in accordance with UPS' internal policies and procedures.

3. One of Plaintiff's claims is that he was retaliated against for complaining about perceived violations of the TSA regulations. Defendant maintains that Plaintiff was terminated for violating its policies and procedures relating to its Certified Cargo Screening Program. As such, Defendant's internal policies and procedures pertaining to the TSA regulations are directly relevant to this case.

4. While Defendant is precluded by law from disclosing "Sensitive Security Information" as defined by statute, 49 CFR 15.1, et seq. 29 C.F.R. 1520, et seq., the parties have agreed to exchange information that relates to Defendant's internal policies and procedures pertaining to the screening and handling of cargo for international and domestic passenger flights. While not technically "Sensitive Security Information" as defined by statute, such information does reveal UPS' operations for screening cargo prior to tendering it to the airline for movement on a passenger flight. If such procedures are disclosed to the public, the integrity of Defendant's Certified Cargo Screening Program would be in jeopardy. Even worse, if this information got into the wrong hands, i.e. a terrorist organization, the public itself could be in danger. As such, good cause exists. See Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003) ["The common law right of access... is not absolute and can be overridden given sufficiently compelling reasons for doing so."].

NOW THEREFORE, this Court approves and enters a Protective Order in this case, with the terms and provisions set forth below:

5. Any party to this litigation shall have the right to designate as "Confidential" and subject to this Order any information, document, or thing, or portion of any document or thing which the designating party otherwise believes in good faith contains information pertaining to Defendant's Certified Cargo Screening Program not otherwise prohibited from disclosure under 29 C.F.R. 1520, et seq. Any party to this litigation who produces or discloses any Confidential Material, including without limitation any information, document, thing, interrogatory answer, admission, pleading, or testimony, shall mark the same with the foregoing or similar legend: "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" (hereinafter "Confidential Material").

6. Any party to this litigation that designates information, documents, items or oral or written communications for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. To the extent it is practical to do so, the designating party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify - so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. If it comes to a designating party's attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection at all or do not qualify for the level of protection initially asserted, that designating party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation.

7. All Confidential Material shall be used by the receiving party solely for purposes of the prosecution or defense of this action, shall not be used by the receiving party for any business, commercial, competitive, personal or other purpose, and shall not be disclosed by the receiving party to anyone other than those set forth in Paragraph 5, unless and until the restrictions herein are removed either by written agreement of counsel for the parties, or by Order of the Court.

8. Unless otherwise ordered by the court or permitted in writing by the designating party, a receiving party may disclose any information or item designated "CONFIDENTIAL" only to:

a. Counsel for the parties, including outside counsel (herein defined as any attorney at the parties' outside law firms) and relevant in-house counsel for the parties, as well as employees of all such Counsel to whom it is ...


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.