A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 9, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-06321·Unknown

Opinion

Mitchell S. Feller (Admitted pro hac) Colin W. Fraser (SBN CA 266867) msfeller@grr.com frasercw@gtlaw.com Jason R. Wachter (Admitted pro hac) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Patrick B. Monahan (Admitted pro hac) 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 pmonahan@grr.com Irvine, California 92612 GOTTLIEB, RACKMAN & REISMAN Tel: 949.732.6500 Fax: 949.732.6501 P.C. Bethany Rabe (SBN CA 270682) 270 Madison Ave., Suite 1403 rabeb@gtlaw.com New York, New York 10016 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Telephone: (212) 684-3900 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 Facsimile: (212) 684-3999 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Jason H. Wilson (Bar No. 140269) Tel: 702.792.3773 Fax: 702.792.9002 jwilson@willenken.com Jacob G. Horton (Admitted pro hac Ashley L. Kirk (Bar No. 291012) jhorton@blanchard-patent.com akirk@willenken.com BLANCHARD HORTON, PLLC WILLENKEN LLP 40 New York Avenue 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100 Post Office Box 567 Los Angeles, California 90017 Oakridge, Tennessee 37831 Telephone: (213) 955-9240 Tel: 865.369.2673 Facsimile: (213) 955-9250 Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff Attorneys for Plaintiff and A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, LLC Counter-Defendant LERMAN CONTAINER CORP.

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LERMAN CONTAINER CORP., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-06321-JFW-RAOx Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, v. Assigned to Hon. John F. Walter A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, LLC, Mag. Judge: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 Complaint Filed: July 10, 2025 Trial Date: Feb. 23, 2027

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Lerman Container Corp., (“Plaintiff” or “eBottles”) and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff A&A Global Imports (“Defendant” or “A&A”) by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby stipulate to the following Protective Order: 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 and Section 9 of Judge John F. Walter’s Standing Order dated July 29, 2025 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3a “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.3b “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” Information or Items: Information that contains or discloses information that the Designating Party, in good faith, believes to be extremely commercially sensitive or would provide a competitive advantage to competitors or compromise or jeopardize the Designating Party’s business interests if disclosed. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel o

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp. (A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)