Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gordon v. HOVG, LLC

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 12, 2017

CHARLES GORDON, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v.
HOVG, LLC dba BAY AREA CREDIT SERVICE, LLC, Defendant.

          HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP MICHAEL R. AYERS Attorneys for Defendant HOVG, LLC dba Bay Area Credit Service, LLC MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC

          ARI H. MARCUS Pro hac vice pending Attorneys for Plaintiff

          STIPULATED MOTION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF DISCOVERY MATERIAL AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE ORDER AS AMENDED ON PP. 7, 8, 9, AND 10

         Plaintiff, Charles Gordon ('Plaintiff), and Defendant HOVG, LLC dba Bay Area Credit Service, LLC ('Defendantˮ) (collectively 'the Partiesˮ), hereby respectfully move the Court for entry of a Protective and Inadvertent Disclosure Order. The Parties seek to maintain the confidentiality of certain documents by governing their handling and to protect documents subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) and Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d), and in support thereof states as follows:

         The Parties' proposed order is intended to permit and restrict the exchange of confidential information and documents during discovery. For example, the Parties seek to protect discoverable documents and materials relating to items such as (1) the materials, policies and procedures Defendant uses to comply with applicable credit reporting-related laws, and training of employees and agents with complying with such laws, (2) Defendant's internal reports and notes, (3) Plaintiff's consumer information, (4) Defendant's internal logs, and (5) other trade secret information maintained by the Parties (collectively “Confidential Information”). The basis for this Motion is several fold: 1) to protect confidential and sensitive consumer information as this matter deals with alleged credit reporting issues, 2) to protect confidential and sensitive personal and/or business information, and 3) to protect disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential information resulting from Defendants investment of millions of dollars from the public and/or competitors. Such confidential and trade secret information is generally not known to competitors and not made available to the public.

         Should Defendant's confidential information become available to the public, it would result in a windfall for other businesses involved in providing similar services. In addition, it would place Defendant at a disadvantage competitively because Defendant would lose the edge it has over other similar businesses that have not made similar investments in training, systems, and procedures. Defendant's Confidential Information include private information on how Defendant organizes and documents activity on the subject account that is the result of Defendants investments of thousands of dollars. Public disclosure of these materials would place Defendant at a disadvantage competitively because its competitors would be aware of Defendant's Confidential Information. That type of knowledge could reasonably negatively impact Defendants business.

         In light of the above, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter the proposed Protective Order.

         PROTECTIVE AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE ORDER

         Charles Gordon (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant HOVG, LLC dba Bay Area Credit Service, LLC (“Defendant”), (collectively referred to as “the Parties” or singularly as “a Party”), having agreed to the entry of a Protective and Inadvertent Disclosure Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d), and the Court being fully advised, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

         1. For the purposes of this Order, the following definitions shall apply:

a. Confidential Information: Generally, information subject to disclosure containing personal information, financial information, trade secrets or other confidential research, including, but not limited to, formulas, methods, or development plans, confidential business information such as marketing plans, customer lists, financial information, sales figures, advertising expenditures, pricing plans, and balance sheets, supplier identities, business plans, license agreements, or other information which could put the producing person or entity at a competitive disadvantage if the information became known to the receiving party or other information reasonably believed to be confidential. Information, the whole of which is publicly available, should not be designated as “Confidential” or “Attorneys Eyes Only.” b. CONFIDENTIAL Designation: Documents not previously disclosed to the public should be designated “Confidential” when such documents contain confidential information that may be reviewed by the Receiving Party, but must be protected against disclosure to third parties.
c. ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Designation: Documents not previously disclosed to the public should be designated “Attorneys' Eyes Only” when such documents contain confidential information that 1) may only be reviewed by counsel for the Receiving Party who, or 2) may only be reviewed by agreed upon named representatives of the Receiving Party and their counsel and must be protected against disclosure to third parties.
d. The “Producing Party” is the Party that provides CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Information;
e. The “Receiving Party” is a Party that receives CONFIDENTIAL / ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY Information; and
f. An “Inadvertently Produced Document” is a document that a Party to this litigation provides to the opposing Party in this case, but that should have been withheld by the Producing Party, in whole or in part, based on a claim of privilege, work-product protection, confidentiality or other restrictions on disclosure, and for which the Producing Party provides the notice required in this Order.

         2. When used in this Order, the word “document” means all written, recorded, or electronically stored material of any kind, and copies thereof (whether identical or not identical) including, but not limited to, interrogatory answers, production responses, requests to admit and responses thereto, documents, as defined in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in the discovery requests in this action, or physical items produced by any Party or non-party in this action whether pursuant to subpoena, court order, discovery requests, or by agreement, deposition transcripts and exhibits, and any portions of any court papers which quote from or summarize any of the foregoing.

         3. Information produced by any party or non-party in this action may be designated by the producing party(ies) as “Confidential” or “Attorneys Eyes Only.” Information designated “Confidential” or “Attorneys Eyes Only” may be used only in connection with this litigation, and not for any other purpose. Such information may not be disclosed to anyone ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.