Exhibit F — Bofa Ca Unemployment (Dkt. 344.10)

Full text

Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB   Document 344-10   Filed 10/03/24   PageID.8029
                               Page 1 of 3




                      Exhibit F
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB        Document 344-10   Filed 10/03/24   PageID.8030
                                    Page 2 of 3


 1
 2
 3
 4
 5
 6
 7
 8                       UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 9                    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
     MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE                      Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB
11   SYSTEMS, INC., A CALIFORNIA
     CORPORATION; MEDIMPACT                    ORDER GRANTING
12   INTERNATIONAL LLC, A                      PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE
     CALIFORNIA LIMITED                        UNDER SEAL
13   LIABILITY COMPANY; AND
     MEDIMPACT INTERNATIONAL
14   HONG KONG LTD., A HONG
     KONG COMPANY,                             Judge: The Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel
15
                    Plaintiffs,                [ECF No. 795]
16
          v.
17
     IQVIA INC., a Delaware corporation;
18   IQVIA LTD., a UK company; IQVIA
     AG, a Swiss company; OMAR
19   GHOSHEH, individually; and AMIT
     SADANA, individually, and DOES 1-
20   20,
21                  Defendants.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28                                 EXHIBIT F
                                      33              Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB
               ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB        Document 344-10      Filed 10/03/24   PageID.8031
                                    Page 3 of 3


 1         Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motions to Seal Documents in Support of
 2   Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) Objection and Motion to Set Aside
 3   Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions (the
 4   “Motion”). (ECF No. 796.)
 5         The Motion seeks to seal Exhibits 6 and 7 to the Declaration of Jennifer
 6   Bennett in support of Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Defendants’ Rule 72(a) Objection
 7   and Motion to Set Aside Magistrate Judge’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion for
 8   Sanctions. Exhibit 6 exhibit is an excerpted copy a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition
 9   transcript. The witness was Dale Brown on behalf of Plaintiff MedImpact. Exhibit 7
10   is an excerpted copy a Rule 30(b)(6) deposition transcript. The witness was Krishna
11   Guttikonda on behalf of Plaintiff MedImpact. Both exhibits have been designated
12   as highly confidential under the protective order governing this case. Both exhibits
13   discuss Plaintiffs’ confidential policies and procedures regarding the preservation of
14   electronic information. Plaintiffs do business in an industry where the preservation
15   and confidentiality of information is highly regulated. Thus, Plaintiffs practices
16   with respect to preservation and confidentiality are both proprietary and sensitive.
17         Accordingly, the disclosure of this information would subject Plaintiffs and
18   Defendants to a risk of substantial harm or prejudice. See McArdle v. AT&T
19   Mobility LLC, No. 09-cv-1117, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 218070, at *13–14 (N.D.
20   Cal. Aug. 13, 2018).
21         Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that there are compelling reasons to
22   GRANT the Motion. It is ORDERED that Exhibits shall be SEALED until further
23   order of this Court.
24         IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
     Dated: January 10, 2023
26
27
28                              EXHIBIT F
                                    34 1              Case No. 3:19-cv-01865-GPC-DEB
               ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.344.10.pdf

Size

242,065 bytes

SHA-256

ff40bd2b6688ef4448305e8e93834edfb1eb8ad71b3daa48844be2269b55323a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.casd.709615.344.10.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)