Afro Unicorn, Inc. v. Michael Benson

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 11, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-07483
StatusUnknown

This text of Afro Unicorn, Inc. v. Michael Benson (Afro Unicorn, Inc. v. Michael Benson) 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
Afro Unicorn, Inc. v. Michael Benson, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 BRIAN M. GROSSMAN (SBN 166681) 2 TESSER | GROSSMAN LLP 11990 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 300 3 Los Angeles, California 90049 4 Telephone: (310) 207-4558 Facsimile: (424) 256-2689 5 Email: brian@tessergrossman.com 6 ZACHARY EYSTER (Pro Hac Vice Pending) 7 KENNINGTON GROFF (Pro Hac Vice) 8 BEKIARES ELIEZER, LLP 2870 Piedmont Road #512 9 Atlanta, GA 30305 10 Telephone: (404) 537-3686 Email: zeyster@founderslegal.com 11 kgroff@founderslegal.com 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13 MICHAEL BENSON and MB BENSON 14 INVESTMENTS, LLC 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 AFRO UNICORN, INC., Case No.: 2:22-cv-07483-MWF-MRW 18 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 19 PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 20 DISCOVERY MATTER 21 MICHAEL BENSON, and MB BENSON INVESTMENTS, LLC 22 23 Defendants. 24 25 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 26 27 Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties, and for good cause appearing, the Court 28 1 2 A. PURPOSES OF LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 4 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 5 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 6 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 7 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 8 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 9 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 10 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 11 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order 12 does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 13 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 14 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 17 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 18 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 19 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 20 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 21 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, 22 or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 23 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 24 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 25 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 26 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 27 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 28 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 1 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 2 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 3 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 4 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 5 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 6 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 7 public record of this case. 8 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 11 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 12 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 13 material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 15 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 16 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County 17 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 18 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 19 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 20 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 21 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 22 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 23 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 24 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 25 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 26 cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 28 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 1 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 2 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 3 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 4 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 5 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 6 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 7 under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 9 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 11 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 12 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include 13 an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 15 1. DEFINITIONS 16 1.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Case No. 22-cv-07843-MWF-MRW 17 1.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 18 information or items under this Order. 19 1.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 20 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 21 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 22 Statement. 23 1.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –ATTORNEYS’ EYESONLY” Information 24 or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items, the disclosure 25 of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm 26 that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 27 1.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 28 support staff).

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

Related

Sierra Club v. Espy
18 F.3d 1202 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Notice v. DuBois
187 F.R.D. 19 (D. Massachusetts, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Afro Unicorn, Inc. v. Michael Benson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/afro-unicorn-inc-v-michael-benson-cacd-2023.