Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Paul Matsumoto filed this action against Careismatic Brands, LLC, a California corporation, on August 31, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The case is docketed as Case No. 2:26-cv-09727-SVW-AJR, with no trial date set. The parties, through counsel, jointly submitted a proposed stipulated protective order and petitioned the court to enter it to govern the handling of confidential discovery material.
The parties represented that discovery is likely to involve trade secrets, commercial, financial, technical, and proprietary information, as well as confidential personnel and employment records and sensitive personal information concerning the plaintiff and current or former employees. They stated that unrestricted disclosure could reveal private compensation, performance, disciplinary, benefits, contract, or other employment information, or could disclose genuinely proprietary business information and invade legally protected privacy interests.
The parties acknowledged that the order does not confer blanket protections on all discovery responses and that protection extends only to information entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. They further acknowledged that the order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal, and that Civil Local Rule 79-5 governs any request to file material under seal.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin entered the stipulated protective order on November 2, 2026, after finding good cause shown. The order establishes procedures for designating material as CONFIDENTIAL, challenging confidentiality designations, accessing and using protected material, responding to subpoenas in other litigation, handling non-party protected material, addressing inadvertent production of privileged material under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(5)(B) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), and managing final disposition of protected material.
The order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery. Protection extends only to limited information entitled to confidential treatment, and mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. The order expressly states that it does not entitle the parties to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures and standards for seeking permission to file material under seal, and protected material may be filed under seal only pursuant to a court order.
The order provides that any use of protected material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge, and that the order does not govern trial use. Protected material not publicly disclosed at trial remains subject to the order unless the court orders otherwise. Once the case proceeds to trial, information used as an exhibit that was previously designated confidential becomes public and presumptively available unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings are made to the trial judge in advance of trial.
Key Takeaways
- The magistrate judge entered the stipulated protective order upon a finding of good cause, based on the parties' representation that discovery will involve trade secrets, proprietary business information, and confidential employment records.
- The order limits protection to specific material qualifying under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and prohibits mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations, with potential sanctions for unjustified or improper designations.
- The order establishes a meet-and-confer process under Local Rule 37-1 for challenging confidentiality designations, with the burden of persuasion on the designating party until the court rules.
- Protected material may be used only for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the action, and may be disclosed only to specified categories of persons, including outside counsel, experts who sign an acknowledgment, the court, and court reporters.
- The order does not govern trial use of protected material and does not authorize filing under seal; parties must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, and violations may be punished by contempt or monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
This stipulated protective order provides the framework for managing confidential discovery in an employment dispute against a corporate defendant. It reflects the standard approach in the Central District of California for balancing protection of sensitive business and personnel information against the public's interest in access to court records, while expediting the flow of discovery and prompt resolution of confidentiality disputes.
The order's explicit limitations—no blanket protection, no sealing authorization, and no governance of trial use—preserve the court's authority to apply stricter standards when protected material becomes part of the court record or is used at trial, consistent with Ninth Circuit authority distinguishing the good cause standard for discovery from the compelling reasons standard for merits-related filings. The order also preserves each party's right to seek additional protection under Rule 26(c) if the protections prove inadequate.