Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Jessica Lewis sued Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc., a Delaware corporation, in an action filed March 12, 2024, and removed to the Eastern District of California on April 12, 2024. The order does not describe the underlying claims, and no trial date has been set. The parties anticipated that discovery would involve confidential, proprietary, or private information, including material protected by privacy rights, confidential business, financial, personnel, policy, and payroll information, and information about current and former employees and third parties.
The parties stipulated to, and petitioned the court to enter, a protective order. Their good cause statement said it would expedite the flow of information, facilitate prompt resolution of confidentiality disputes, protect information the parties may keep confidential, and address handling at the end of the litigation. They acknowledged that the order confers no blanket protection, reaches only information entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles, and does not itself authorize filing under seal. Counsel signed on October 26, 2026, and the magistrate judge entered the order the next day.
The Court’s Holding
On October 27, 2026, the court approved the stipulation and protective order, reciting that good cause appeared. This is a stipulated discovery-management order, not a ruling on the merits, and the court made no findings about any particular document. It covers information not in the public domain that qualifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) or that the designating party believes in good faith is confidential or proprietary information of either party or third parties, including employee information protected by privacy rights. Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this action.
Designations must be made with restraint. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited, and clearly unjustified or improperly motivated ones may expose the designating party to sanctions. Documents must bear a CONFIDENTIAL legend, and deposition testimony may be designated on the record before the deposition closes. An inadvertent failure to designate does not alone waive protection if corrected within 60 days of production. Disclosure is limited to listed recipients, including outside counsel and necessary staff, party personnel, experts, trial consultants and vendors who sign the acknowledgment, the court and reporters, authors and recipients, deposition witnesses, and agreed mediators. A party served with a subpoena in other litigation must give notice and cooperate, and unauthorized disclosures must be reported immediately.
A party may challenge a designation within 30 days after receiving the information, or at any time consistent with the scheduling order, after following the Local Rule 251 process. The designating party bears the burden of persuasion, frivolous challenges may draw sanctions, and the material stays protected until the court rules. Filing under seal requires a separate court order under General Local Rules 141 and 141.1 for the specific material, on a showing of good cause. The order's terms do not extend beyond the start of trial, and trial use is left to the trial judge; the order cites Kamakana for the higher compelling-reasons standard for merits-related records. After final disposition, a receiving party must, within 60 days of a written request, return or destroy protected material and certify compliance, with a 10-day cure period. Counsel may keep archival copies, which remain subject to the order. Violations may be punished by contempt or monetary sanctions, and any person may seek modification.
Key Takeaways
- The order protects only material that qualifies under Rule 26(c) or is designated in good faith, and it bars blanket or tactical designations.
- Designation does not decide confidentiality: a challenger may seek a ruling, but the designating party carries the burden and the material stays protected in the meantime.
- Nothing in the order permits sealing court filings; a separate sealing order under Local Rules 141 and 141.1 is required.
- Privilege clawback follows Rule 26(b)(5)(B); the order only contemplates a separate Evidence Rule 502 agreement and does not itself state one.
- Protection ends at trial, so confidential designations should not be assumed to carry into the courtroom.
Why It Matters
This is a routine stipulated order and carries no precedential weight. It illustrates the confidentiality framework used in Eastern District of California civil cases and the line the order draws between discovery-stage protection under a good cause standard and the separate showings needed for sealing and trial access.
What remains open: whether any specific document qualifies as confidential, any sealing request, any later modification, and how protected material will be treated at trial. The case continues with no trial date, and the order resolves none of the underlying claims or defenses.