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.

Grodzitsky v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc.

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

September 23, 2013

PHYLLIS GRODZITSKY, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Defendant.

[PROPOSED] CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER

PAUL L. ABRAMS, Magistrate Judge.

Pursuant to stipulation among the parties,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all "Confidential Documents" and corresponding information produced by American Honda Motor Co., Inc. ("AHM") in response to any of Plaintiffs' requests for production of documents, interrogatories, deposition testimony, or other requests for discovery in Phyllis Grodzitsky, et al, v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., are subject to the terms of this Confidentiality Order as set forth below:

I. DEFINITIONS

1. "CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS." This term is intended to refer to the documents that are deemed "Confidential" under the provisions of paragraph II(1)-(2) of this Order. "Confidential Documents" includes of the contents of the original and all copies or other reproductions of the Documents subject to this Order.

2. "DOCUMENT(S)." This term is intended as a collective reference to any and all material or other tangible things containing information produced by AHM in the above-styled cause, including written responses to discovery and deposition exhibits Without limitation, the term "Document(s)" further includes any medium by which information is recorded, stored, communicated, or utilized, including papers (of any kind, type, or character) and any method or medium by which information may be communicated, recorded, or retrieved by people or by computers. The word Document(s) includes, without limitation, photographs, x-rays, motion pictures, audio tapes, videotape recordings, computer generated material, computer disks, and any other form or type of computer stored or computer retrievable data, microfilm and microfiche, or any other process by which information is reduced for storage, and duplicates and reproductions of the same by any method.

3. "COMPETITOR(S)." This term means any person or legal entity other than AHM engaged in the design, manufacture, sale, or distribution of automobiles or the design or manufacture of automobile components. The term "competitor" includes any person that Plaintiffs' Counsel knows is employed by or expects to be employed by any competitor of AHM.

4. "LEGAL ENTITY." The phrase refers to any and every kind or type of business whether for profit or nonprofit. This phrase includes, without restriction, person(s) "doing business as" some name by which the business is known by the public. It also includes partnerships (whether general or special or limited), firms, proprietorships, any type of company or group, incorporated and/or unincorporated associations, public or private corporations, political corporations or subdivisions, and any other type of business or organization that has legal standing in the eyes of the law. The phrase includes any department, division, office, agency, affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of the subject legal entity. The phrase includes any successor or predecessor legal entity to the subject legal entity. The phrase includes any officer, agent, servant, or employee of the subject legal entity.

5. "PLAINTIFFS' COUNSEL." This phrase refers to the attorneys of record for the Plaintiffs in the above-styled action. In the event that the attorneys of record are members of a firm, this phrase includes any and all other lawyers who are members of or associated with Plaintiffs' Counsel's firm.

II. PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING STATUS OF CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS

1. Documents that AHM, in good faith, believes to contain information subject to protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) may be designated as "Confidential." Documents designated as "Confidential" specifically include trade secrets as defined by California Civil Code Section 3426.1. This includes, but is not limited to, AHM's Quality Improvement Sheets, warranty claims such as standard non-discretionary warranty claims, good will claims, certified used car claims, and vehicle service-contract claims. AHM represents that all documents, testimony, and/or other items designated as "Confidential" pursuant to this Stipulation for Confidentiality Order contain trade secret, proprietary and/or confidential information. AHM will mark or otherwise identify documents designated as "Confidential" prior to producing such documents to Plaintiffs.

2. In the event Plaintiffs' Counsel opposes any confidentiality designation, Plaintiffs' Counsel may, after reasonable consultation with counsel for AHM, seek intervention of the Court to determine whether such documents are entitled to protection. In connection with said consultation, both parties must make a good faith effort to resolve any dispute before seeking the intervention of the Court as required pursuant to Local Rule 37. If the parties are subsequently unable to agree upon the terms and conditions of disclosure for the Document(s) in issue, Plaintiffs may move the Court for an order withdrawing the disputed designation(s). Plaintiffs and AHM will submit a Joint Stipulation and any supplemental memoranda as required by Local Rule 37. On such a motion, AHM will have the burden of proving that "good cause" exists for the designation at issue and that the material is entitled to protection as Confidential under applicable law. If the parties want to file any Joint Stipulation required by Local Rule 37 under seal, the parties may file a stipulation to that effect or the moving party may file an ex parte application making the appropriate request. The parties must set forth good cause in the stipulation or ex parte application as to why the Joint Stipulation or portions thereof should be filed under seal. As to any document that is contested which the Court deems not to be "Confidential, " such documents will be deemed outside the scope of this Confidentiality Stipulation and Order.

Plaintiffs do not waive their right to challenge a Confidential designation by electing not to raise a challenge promptly after the original designation is disclosed and may challenge a ...


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.