Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Erika Sulpacio Jones sued Southwest Airlines Co. and ORD Lift & GSE Incorporated, among other defendants, in the Central District of California. Anticipating that discovery would involve confidential, proprietary or private information, the parties jointly asked the court to enter a stipulated protective order that they described as substantially based on the model order in Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver's procedures.
The good cause statement says the case is likely to involve commercial contracts and vendor agreements containing financial, technical or proprietary information, some implicating third-party privacy. The parties said protection would speed the exchange of information and the resolution of confidentiality disputes, and they pledged not to designate material for tactical reasons or without a good-faith belief that it has been kept non-public. The order manages discovery only. It decides no claim or defense and finds no particular document confidential.
The Court’s Holding
On October 22, 2026, Magistrate Judge Oliver entered the order, writing "for good cause shown, it is so ordered." It covers material designated CONFIDENTIAL that qualifies under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), plus copies, summaries and testimony that might reveal it. Mass, indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited, and clearly unjustified ones may draw sanctions. Designations are generally made before production, by legend on documents, on the record before a deposition closes, or on containers for other items. A timely corrected inadvertent failure to designate does not alone waive protection.
Receiving parties may use protected material only to prosecute, defend or attempt to settle this action. Disclosure is limited to listed recipients: outside counsel, party personnel with a need to know, experts, the court, court reporters, consultants and vendors, document authors or recipients, deposition witnesses and agreed mediators. Experts, consultants and vendors must sign an acknowledgment, and witnesses may not keep confidential material unless they sign one. A party may challenge a designation after a Local Rule 37.1 meet and confer; the designating party bears the burden of persuasion, and protection continues until the court rules.
The order requires prompt notice if protected material is subpoenaed in other litigation, gives a non-party 14 days to seek protection of its material, and requires immediate reporting of unauthorized disclosures. After final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within 60 days of a written request and certify compliance, though counsel may keep archival copies of pleadings, transcripts, exhibits and work product. Violations may be punished by contempt or monetary sanctions.
Key Takeaways
- A confidentiality designation alone does not justify sealing; Local Rule 79-5 governs, a separate court order is required, and competent evidence by declaration must show the material is protectable.
- Sealing requires good cause for non-dispositive motions but compelling reasons, narrowly tailored, for dispositive motions or trial, and documents should be redacted rather than sealed in full where feasible.
- By its terms the order does not extend beyond commencement of trial, and use of protected material at trial is left to the trial judge.
- Only experts, consultants, vendors and certain deposition witnesses must sign the acknowledgment; counsel, the court and court reporters need not.
- Any person may seek modification of the order, and no party waives other objections to production or admissibility.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished, stipulated discovery order entered by a magistrate judge. It has no precedential weight and resolves no dispute. Its value is as an example of the model-based approach used in this district, in which confidentiality governs discovery while public access to filed records remains subject to the sealing standards the order recites.
Much remains open. No specific document has been designated or challenged, and sealing applications, designation disputes and trial-stage confidentiality are left for later. One ambiguity: Section 13 says archival copies remain subject to the order as set forth in Section 4, yet Section 4 says the order does not extend beyond the start of trial, so post-trial obligations may need clarification.