Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Sandra Arvallo filed a personal injury action against Costco Wholesale Corporation in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, on July 1, 2026. The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Margo A. Rocconi. The parties anticipated that discovery would involve production of Costco's non-public operational records, including floor and warehouse inspection records, audits, policies and procedures, employee training materials, risk management and claims records, safety meeting materials, internal operational records, witness and employee statements, and Warehouse Reports.
The parties jointly stipulated to the entry of a protective order to govern the handling of confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive, trade secret, or private information produced during discovery. They acknowledged that the order does not confer blanket protections and that protection extends only to information entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledged that filing confidential information under seal requires compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and that the stipulated order does not entitle them to file materials under seal automatically.
The Court’s Holding
The court entered the Stipulated Protective Order on October 23, 2026. The order defines "CONFIDENTIAL" information as material qualifying for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including Costco's non-public floor and warehouse inspection records, audits, policies, procedures, training materials, risk management records, safety meeting materials, internal operational records, witness and employee statements, Warehouse Reports, and deposition testimony concerning such materials. The order requires designating parties to exercise restraint, prohibits mass or indiscriminate designations, and mandates that designations be made in good faith.
The order establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, placing the burden of persuasion on the designating party. Protected material may be disclosed only to specified categories of recipients, including outside counsel, party officers and employees, experts who have signed an acknowledgment agreement, the court and its personnel, court reporters, professional vendors, witnesses during depositions, and mediators. The order terminates at the commencement of trial, at which point all designated information becomes presumptively public unless compelling reasons are shown to the trial judge. After final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within 60 days of a written request, though counsel may retain archival copies subject to the order's continuing confidentiality obligations.
Key Takeaways
- The protective order applies to a broad range of Costco's internal operational and safety records, reflecting the anticipated scope of discovery in a premises liability action.
- Designating parties must specifically identify protected portions of documents and may not make mass or routinized designations without risk of sanctions.
- The order incorporates the Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu standard, distinguishing the 'good cause' standard for discovery protection from the 'compelling reasons' standard required to seal trial records.
- Protected material must be returned or destroyed within 60 days of a written request after final disposition, but counsel may retain archival copies of pleadings, transcripts, exhibits, and work product.
- The order includes a mandatory acknowledgment agreement (Exhibit A) that must be signed by experts, vendors, and deposition witnesses before accessing confidential information.
Why It Matters
This stipulated protective order establishes a comprehensive framework for managing confidential discovery in a retail premises liability case, balancing the plaintiff's need for access to Costco's internal safety and operational records with Costco's interest in protecting proprietary business information. The order's detailed designation and challenge procedures, coupled with its incorporation of Ninth Circuit precedent on the distinction between discovery confidentiality and trial sealing standards, provide a template for similar cases involving retail defendants. The order's automatic expiration at trial commencement reinforces the strong presumption of public access to judicial proceedings.