Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

James v. Boyd Gaming Corp.

United States District Court, D. Kansas

August 20, 2019

ROGER JAMES, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff,

          Alexander T. Ricke Counsel for: Plaintiff.

          Travis L. Salmon Counsel for: Defendants.


          James P. O'Hara U.S. Magistrate Judge.

         The parties agree that during the course of discovery it may be necessary to disclose certain confidential information relating to the subject matter of this action. The parties further agree that certain categories of such information should be treated as confidential, protected from disclosure outside this litigation, and used only for purposes of prosecuting or defending this action and any appeals. The parties jointly request entry of this proposed Protective Order to limit the disclosure, dissemination, and use of certain identified categories of confidential information.

         The parties assert in support of their request that protection of the identified categories of confidential information is necessary to prevent the disclosure of matters deemed confidential under the terms of this Order to persons or entities other than those involved in the prosecution or defense of this litigation and to facilitate the exchange of information between the parties while protecting against the disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected documents or ESI. The Order is necessary to protect the parties and other persons from annoyance and embarrassment and to protect against the disclosure of information that is proprietary and/or confidential in nature, or that is protected by privilege, work-product or other applicable grounds. Discovery in this case may seek private information concerning the parties and non-parties, including but not limited to: Plaintiff's confidential financial, educational, employment, and medical records, as well as other personal information; the personnel and/or human resources files of current and/or former employees of any Defendant; confidential financial information of any Defendant; and confidential and/or proprietary information related to any Defendant's employees, and the business and operation of any Defendant, including policies, practices, or procedures. Good cause exists for the issuance of a protective order, including if the confidential information were known generally, such knowledge could lead to embarrassment, humiliation, loss of status and reputation, loss of business and/or job opportunities, and could potentially impact upon certain persons' personal and/or work relationships. Good cause further exists regarding any Defendant's financial, proprietary, and business operations information, as that information is not generally known to the public, and could, therefore, place any Defendant at a competitive disadvantage. Good cause also exists as to safeguards for privileged, work product-protected, or otherwise shielded information, as the entry of a “claw-back” instruction with respect to such information will improve discovery efficiency by pre-empting motion practice on these settled issues.

         To expedite the flow of discovery material, facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over claims of confidentiality, provide adequate protection for material deemed confidential, provide safeguards for material deemed privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure, and ensure that protection is afforded only to such deemed material, on the agreement of Plaintiff Roger James and Defendants Boyd Gaming Corporation and Kansas Star Casino, LLC, and for good cause shown under 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court enters the following Agreed Protective Order:

         1. Scope.

         All documents and electronically stored information (“ESI”) produced in the course of discovery of this case, including initial disclosures, responses to discovery requests, all deposition testimony and exhibits, and information derived directly therefrom are subject to this Order concerning Confidential Information as set forth below. As there is a presumption in favor of open and public judicial proceedings in the federal courts, this Order will be strictly construed in favor of public disclosure and open proceedings wherever possible.

         2. Definition of Confidential Information.

         As used in this Order, “Confidential Information” is defined as information that the producing party designates in good faith has been previously maintained in a confidential manner and should be protected from disclosure and use outside the litigation because its disclosure and use are restricted by statute or could potentially cause harm to the interests of the disclosing party or nonparties. For purposes of this Order, the parties will limit their designation of “Confidential Information” to the following categories of information or documents:

(a) Medical, financial, educational, employment, tax records, and/or other personal information;
(b) Personnel, payroll, and/or human resources files, records, and/or information of current and/or former employees of any Defendant;
(c) Confidential and/or proprietary information or trade secrets related to the business and operation of any Defendant, including policies, practices, or procedures; and
(d) Records whose disclosure is restricted or prohibited by law.

         Information or documents that are available to the public may not be designated as Confidential Information.

         3. Designating Documents, ESI and Interrogatory Answers as Confidential.

         Any party to this action may designate as “Confidential Information” documents, ESI and responses to interrogatories, requests for admissions, or requests for production of documents and ESI made after entry of this Order by stamping or labeling the documents, ESI or responses with the word “Confidential.” Documents or ESI will be marked as “Confidential” prior to or at the time the documents or ESI are produced or disclosed. Documents, ESI or responses shall not be treated as confidential pursuant to this Order unless they are stamped or labeled as “Confidential.” The inadvertent failure to designate material as “Confidential” does not preclude a party from subsequently making such a designation, in which case the material is treated as confidential only after being properly designated. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or stipulated by the parties, only those categories of documents and ESI enumerated in Paragraph 2 may be designated as Confidential Information.

         Applying the marking to a document does not mean that the document has any status or protection by statute or otherwise except to the extent and for the purposes of this Order. Copies that are made of any designated documents must also bear the marking, except that indices, electronic databases, or lists of documents that do not contain substantial portions or images of the text of marked documents and do not otherwise disclose the substance of the Confidential Information are not required to be marked. By marking a designated document as confidential, the designating attorney or party appearing pro se thereby certifies that the document contains Confidential Information as defined in this Order.

         4. Inadvertent Failure to Designate.

         Inadvertent failure to designate any document or ESI as containing Confidential Information will not constitute a waiver of an otherwise valid claim of confidentiality pursuant to this Order, so long as a claim of confidentiality is asserted within 14 days after discovery of the inadvertent failure.

         5. ...

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.