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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 9, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-06321
StatusUnknown

This text of A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp. (A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

1 Mitchell S. Feller (Admitted pro hac) Colin W. Fraser (SBN CA 266867) 2 msfeller@grr.com frasercw@gtlaw.com Jason R. Wachter (Admitted pro hac) GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 3 Patrick B. Monahan (Admitted pro hac) 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 500 4 pmonahan@grr.com Irvine, California 92612 GOTTLIEB, RACKMAN & REISMAN Tel: 949.732.6500 Fax: 949.732.6501 5 P.C. Bethany Rabe (SBN CA 270682) 6 270 Madison Ave., Suite 1403 rabeb@gtlaw.com New York, New York 10016 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 7 Telephone: (212) 684-3900 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 8 Facsimile: (212) 684-3999 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Jason H. Wilson (Bar No. 140269) Tel: 702.792.3773 Fax: 702.792.9002 9 jwilson@willenken.com Jacob G. Horton (Admitted pro hac 10 Ashley L. Kirk (Bar No. 291012) jhorton@blanchard-patent.com akirk@willenken.com BLANCHARD HORTON, PLLC 11 WILLENKEN LLP 40 New York Avenue 12 707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 4100 Post Office Box 567 Los Angeles, California 90017 Oakridge, Tennessee 37831 13 Telephone: (213) 955-9240 Tel: 865.369.2673 14 Facsimile: (213) 955-9250 Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Plaintiff 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff and A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, LLC 16 Counter-Defendant LERMAN CONTAINER CORP. 17

18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19

20 LERMAN CONTAINER CORP., CASE NO. 2:25-cv-06321-JFW-RAOx Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant, 21 v. Assigned to Hon. John F. Walter A&A GLOBAL IMPORTS, LLC, Mag. Judge: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver 22 Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 23 ORDER1 Complaint Filed: July 10, 2025 24 Trial Date: Feb. 23, 2027

25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 28 1 Plaintiff and Counterclaim Defendant Lerman Container Corp., (“Plaintiff” 2 or “eBottles”) and Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff A&A Global Imports 3 4 (“Defendant” or “A&A”) by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby 5 stipulate to the following Protective Order: 6 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 7 8 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 9 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 10 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 11 12 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 13 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 14 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 15 16 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 17 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 18 under the applicable legal principles. 19 20 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 21 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 22 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 23 24 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 25 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 26 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 27 28 1 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 2 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 3 4 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 5 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 6 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 7 8 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 9 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 10 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 11 12 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 13 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 14 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 15 16 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 17 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 18 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 19 20 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 21 part of the public record of this case. 22 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 23 24 UNDER SEAL 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 26 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 27 28 1 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 and Section 9 of Judge John F. Walter’s Standing 2 Order dated July 29, 2025 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 3 4 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 5 material under seal. 6 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 7 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 9 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 10 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. 11 12 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. 13 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 14 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 15 16 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 17 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under 18 seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 19 20 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 21 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 22 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 25 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 26 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 27 28 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 3 4 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 5 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 6 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 7 8 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 9 declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 11 12 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 13 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 14 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 15 16 portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 17 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 18 redaction is not feasible. 19 20 2. DEFINITIONS 21 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit 22 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 23 24 designation of information or items under this Order. 25 2.3a “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 26 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 27 28 1 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
A&A Global Imports, LLC v. Lerman Container Corp., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aa-global-imports-llc-v-lerman-container-corp-cacd-2025.