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.

Barnett v. Navient Solutions, Inc.

United States District Court, E.D. California

June 20, 2017

Jeffery Barnett, Plaintiff,
v.
Navient Solutions, Inc., et al., Defendants.

          STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

          STEPHEN M. MCNAMEE SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Pending before the Court is the parties', Plaintiff Jeffrey Barnett and Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc. (“NSL”), Stipulation for Protective Order. (Doc. 33.) In support and pursuant to Local Rule 141(b)(1) and (c), the parties state that there is a potentially significant number of documents to be produced by NSL containing the nonpublic personal information of Plaintiff (student loan and various financial documents) and the confidential and proprietary information of NSL, such that document-by-document review of these materials will be impracticable if the case is to proceed in an orderly, timely, and efficient manner. (Id.) Further, the parties state their interest in protecting the confidential personal information of Plaintiff, as well as confidential and commercially sensitive information of NSL pertaining to Plaintiff's account(s) from unnecessary disclosure, and the parties' desire and the benefit to the Court of an orderly and expeditious resolution of this matter on its merits, outweigh any societal interest in disclosure of such materials on the public record. (Id.)

         The good cause standard applies when parties seek to protect from public view certain documents obtained during discovery. For good cause to exist under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), “the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing specific prejudice or harm will result if no protective order is granted.” Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). “Broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning, do not satisfy the Rule 26(c) test.” Beckman Indus., Inc. v. International Ins. Co., 966 F.2d 470, 476 (9th Cir. 1992) (further citation omitted). Rather, the party seeking protection must make a “particularized showing of good cause with respect to [each] individual document.” San Jose Mercury News Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999).

         The Court finds that the parties' have established good cause for entering this Stipulated Protective Order.

         Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED granting the parties', Plaintiff Jeffrey Barnett and Defendant Navient Solutions, Inc., Stipulation for Protective Order. (Doc. 33.)

         IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:

         1. “CONFIDENTIAL” Documents, Materials, and Information.

         This Order shall govern all documents produced by NSL and all written answers, deposition answers, other responses to discovery, and all communications of any kind made by Defendant NSL, its attorneys, consultants, agents, employees, and representatives; and other third parties. “CONFIDENTIAL” materials shall be the documents or information NSL designates under this Order and any notes, work papers, or other documents respectively containing “CONFIDENTIAL” materials derived from such items. NSL may identify any documents or information, including but not limited to discovery materials produced by other parties and initial disclosures, documents and things, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for production, responses to requests for admission, deposition exhibits, and all or portions of deposition or hearing transcripts of others, as “CONFIDENTIAL” and designate the documents or information as such by affixing thereto a legend of “CONFIDENTIAL” or by designating through another method set forth in this Order or agreed to by the parties.

         NSL may designate documents or information as “CONFIDENTIAL” to the extent NSL, through counsel, believes “good cause” under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) exists to categorize the material as confidential because the material contains or includes: (1) confidential business or technical information; (2) trade secrets; (3) proprietary business methods or practices; (4) any other competitively sensitive confidential information; (5) personal information, including personal financial information about customers or applicants, any party to this lawsuit, or an employee of any party to this lawsuit; (6) information regarding any individual's banking or lending relationships, including, without limitation, information regarding any individual's mortgage or credit history and/or consumer information not otherwise available to the public; and (7) any other categories that are later agreed to in writing by the parties or ordered by the Court.

         2. Designation of “CONFIDENTIAL” Material.

         NSL shall designate materials as “CONFIDENTIAL” by stamping them with the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in a manner which will not interfere with their legibility. This designation shall only be used in a reasonable fashion and upon a good faith determination by counsel that a particular document contains non-public information and falls within one of the categories enumerated in Paragraph 1. This designation shall ordinarily be made before or at the same time as the production or disclosure of the material. Because materials described in Paragraph 1 shall be covered by this Order, there shall be no waiver of confidentiality if such materials are inadvertently produced without being stamped “CONFIDENTIAL.” Materials already produced in discovery in this litigation may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” upon written notice (without stamping), within fourteen (14) days of the entry of this Order, by NSL to all counsel of record to whom such documents have been produced by notifying the other party of the identity of the documents or information to be so designated. NSL can remove at any time its designation of “CONFIDENTIAL” from any of the documents or information it previously so designated.

         3. Treatment of “CONFIDENTIAL” Information.

         Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, “CONFIDENTIAL” material, and any quotes, summaries, charts, or notes made therefrom, and any facts or information contained therein or derived therefrom, shall be held in confidence and used by the parties to whom the documents and information are produced solely for the purpose of this case. The parties agree to take reasonable steps to maintain the confidentiality of the documents, information, and testimony relating thereto. During the pendency of this litigation, “CONFIDENTIAL” material, including all copies thereof, shall be retained solely in the custody of the parties' attorneys and shall not be placed in the possession of or disclosed to any other person, except as set forth in this Order, as otherwise agreed upon by the parties, or upon leave of Court. Each person to whom “CONFIDENTIAL” material is disclosed pursuant to this Order is hereby prohibited from exploiting in any way such documents or information for his, her, or its own benefit, or from using such information for any purpose or in any manner not connected with the prosecution or defense of this case.

         4. “Disclosure.”

         As used herein, “disclosure” or to “disclose” shall mean to divulge, reveal, describe, summarize, paraphrase, quote, transmit, or otherwise communicate “CONFIDENTIAL” material.

         5. Permissible Disclosure of “CONFIDENTIAL” Material.

         Except by order of this Court, or otherwise as required by law, material designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” (and any notes or documents that reflect or refer to such documents and information) shall not be disclosed to any person other than:

(a) A party hereto;
(b) Counsel employed by a party, or an employee of such counsel, to whom it is necessary that the materials be shown or 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.