Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Vivian J. Rivera filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California against Universal Studios LLC, NBCUniversal LLC, Comcast Corporation, NBC Universal Theme Parks, Scott Strobl, and unnamed Doe defendants. The case is assigned number 2:26-cv-03744 MWC-AJR. The parties jointly stipulated to a protective order to govern the handling of confidential material exchanged during discovery.
The parties explained that discovery was likely to involve sensitive business and operational records belonging to Universal City Studios, including video surveillance footage, internal incident reports, witness statements, and safety-related policies. They argued that public disclosure of such materials could compromise security operations, invade the privacy of non-party witnesses and employees, and place the defendant at a competitive disadvantage. The stipulation was submitted with a proposed order, and Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin signed the operative order line on October 21, 2026.
The Court’s Holding
The court entered the stipulated protective order upon a finding of good cause. The order establishes a framework for designating, handling, challenging, and eventually disposing of confidential discovery material. It defines 'CONFIDENTIAL' information as material qualifying for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and limits protection to specific information genuinely warranting confidential treatment. The order expressly prohibits mass or indiscriminate designations and warns that unjustified designations made for improper purposes may result in sanctions.
The order sets out detailed procedures for marking confidential documents, handling deposition testimony containing protected material, and managing inadvertent failures to designate. It places the burden of persuasion on the designating party in any challenge to a confidentiality designation and requires parties to follow local meet-and-confer procedures before bringing discovery disputes to the court. It also addresses protected material subpoenaed in other litigation and non-party confidential information sought in this case.
The order does not entitle any party to file material under seal; any party seeking to file protected material under seal must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and show good cause. As to trial, the order provides that court-filed information to be introduced at trial that was previously designated confidential becomes public and presumptively available to the public unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings are shown to the trial judge in advance, while expressly stating that the order does not govern use of protected material at trial. After final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy all protected material within 60 days of a written request, though counsel may retain archival copies subject to the order's continued protections.
Key Takeaways
- The court entered a stipulated protective order allowing the parties to designate discovery material as confidential, but only for specific information that genuinely qualifies for protection under Rule 26(c).
- The order covers sensitive materials including video surveillance footage, internal incident reports, witness statements, and safety-related policies and procedures belonging to Universal City Studios.
- Mass or indiscriminate confidentiality designations are prohibited, and parties making clearly unjustified designations for improper purposes may face sanctions.
- The protective order does not automatically permit filing under seal; any party wishing to seal court-filed material must separately comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and show good cause.
- At trial, only court-filed information to be introduced that was previously designated confidential becomes presumptively public absent compelling reasons; the order does not govern trial use of protected material.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the standard framework federal courts in the Central District of California use to balance open discovery against legitimate concerns about protecting sensitive business and personal information. Its trial provision reflects Ninth Circuit precedent distinguishing the good-cause standard for discovery-phase confidentiality from the compelling-reasons standard for merits-related court records, while limiting the order's own reach at trial.
For practitioners, the order is a reminder that stipulated protective orders do not confer blanket sealing authority and that parties must follow separate local-rule procedures to file material under seal. The provisions addressing non-party information, subpoenas from other litigation, and post-disposition obligations reflect the comprehensive approach courts expect in managing confidential discovery in complex civil cases.