Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Laura Salazar brought an action against Universal City Studios, LLC in the Central District of California, Western Division, under Case No. 2:25-cv-11741-HDV(Ex). The parties submitted a stipulated protective order because discovery was expected to include confidential business and operational records. The identified materials included surveillance footage of the subject incident, internal incident and investigation materials, and nonpublic records concerning security and surveillance operations. The stipulation also identified privacy concerns involving employees, guests, and nonparty witnesses.
The parties stated that public disclosure could compromise security and surveillance operations, invade nonparties' privacy, and reveal confidential operational information. They represented that confidentiality designations would not be used for tactical reasons and would require a good-faith belief that the material had been kept confidential and warranted protection. The order defines protected material as discovery material designated "CONFIDENTIAL" and extends protection to copies, extracts, summaries, compilations, and testimony or presentations that might reveal it.
The Court’s Holding
On October 15, 2026, Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick approved the stipulation and protective order, stating that good cause appeared and ordering its entry. Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle the action. Unless the court orders otherwise or the designating party permits disclosure in writing, access is limited to specified recipients, including necessary counsel and party personnel, qualifying experts and vendors who sign an acknowledgment, court personnel, certain witnesses, and agreed mediators or settlement officers. Receiving parties must store the material securely and limit access to authorized persons.
The order separately restricts artificial intelligence and machine-learning uses. Protected material cannot be used to train, fine-tune, develop, test, improve, or otherwise feed a model except where the model is developed and used solely for this litigation or a related proceeding. It also cannot be submitted to an artificial intelligence service where doing so would permit use, access, control, retention, or disclosure outside that scope. Designations must be limited to qualifying material, and mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. A designating party bears the burden when confidentiality is challenged, while the material remains protected until the court rules unless the designation is waived or withdrawn.
The order does not itself authorize filing confidential information under seal. A party must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5, obtain an order authorizing sealing of the specific material, and show good cause. If sealing is denied, the receiving party may file the information publicly unless the court instructs otherwise. The order also preserves objections and the right to seek modification, addresses subpoenas and nonparty material, and requires notice and remedial steps after unauthorized disclosure. Following final disposition, protected material generally must be returned or destroyed within 60 days of a written request, with written certification, although counsel may retain specified archival copies that remain protected.
Key Takeaways
- The court approved the parties' protective order but did not grant blanket confidentiality to every discovery response or disclosure.
- Protected material is restricted to this litigation and authorized recipients, with special limits on artificial intelligence training and external AI services.
- Confidentiality designations must be specific and made in good faith, and clearly unjustified or improper designations may lead to sanctions.
- The protective order does not authorize sealing court filings; Civil Local Rule 79-5 and a separate court order remain necessary.
- The order's terms do not extend beyond the commencement of trial, use of protected material at trial is governed by the trial judge's orders, and protected material generally must be returned or certified destroyed after the case ends upon a timely written request.
Why It Matters
The order establishes the discovery-confidentiality framework for Salazar's action while preserving judicial control over challenges, sealing, modification, and trial use. Its express artificial intelligence provisions address both model development and disclosure to outside services, rather than treating confidentiality as satisfied merely by restricting onward sharing between people.
The decision resolves the proposed protective order, not the underlying claims or any discovery dispute over a particular designation. It also distinguishes pretrial discovery protection from public access at trial: the terms of the protective order do not extend beyond the commencement of trial, and court-filed information previously designated confidential becomes public and presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings are shown to the trial judge in advance.