AirDoctor, LLC v. Homeburg Limited

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 31, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00352
StatusUnknown

This text of AirDoctor, LLC v. Homeburg Limited (AirDoctor, LLC v. Homeburg Limited) 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
AirDoctor, LLC v. Homeburg Limited, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 EPSTEIN DRANGEL LLP Danielle S. Futterman, pro hac vice 2 dfutterman@ipcounselors.com 3 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1250 New York, NY 10165 4 Telephone: 212-292-5390 Facsimile: 212-292-5391 5 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT Peter J. Farnese (SBN 251204) 6 pfarnese@ipcounselors.com 7 700 South Flower Street, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90017 8 Telephone: 310-356-4668 Facsimile: 310-388-1232 9

10 Attorneys for Plaintiff, AirDoctor, LLC 11 Jen-Feng Lee, SBN 204328 12 jflee@ltpacificlaw.com Kenneth K. Tanji, Jr., SBN 162273 13 ktanji@ltpacificlaw.com 14 LT Pacific Law Group, LLP 17800 Castleton Street, #560 15 City of Industry, CA 91748 T: 626-810-7200 16 F: 626-810-7300 17 Attorneys for Defendants 18 Homeburg, Inc. Replacement-parts 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 AIRDOCTOR, LLC., CASE NO.: 2:23-cv-00352-DMG 22 Plaintiff,

23 v. 24 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE HOMEBURG LIMITED, HOMEBURG ORDER 25 INC. and REPLACEMENT-PARTS,

26 Defendants. 27 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following protective order (“Stipulated Protective Order”). The parties acknowledge 7 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 9 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 10 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 11 acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not authorize any party to file 12 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 13 that must be followed when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 14 under seal. 15 A. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, 17 financial revenue and profit information, marketing strategies, and other valuable 18 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 19 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 20 purpose other than prosecution of this action may be warranted. Such confidential and 21 proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other things, 22 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 23 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 24 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 25 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 26 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 27 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 1 to adequately protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 2 ensure that the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 3 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 4 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 5 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be 6 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 7 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 8 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 9 case. 10 Additionally, here, there is a need for a two-tiered, attorneys’ eyes only protective 11 order that designates certain material as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 12 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. See Elements Spirits, Inc. v. Iconic Brands, Inc., Civ. 13 No. CV 15-02692 DDP(AGRx), 2016 WL 2642206, at *1–*2 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 14 2016) (holding that protective order with attorneys’ eyes only designation was 15 warranted to protect party’s confidential information) (citing Nutratech, Inc. v. 16 Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Brown Bag Software v. 17 Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). . 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, AirDoctor, LLC v. Homeburg 20 Limited, et al., Case No. 23-cv-352-DMG-JPR 21 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party (as defined herein) or Non-Party (as defined 22 herein) that challenges the designation of information or items under this Stipulated 23 Protective Order. 24 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 25 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 26 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified in the Good Cause 27 Statement. 1 that is/are extremely confidential and/or sensitive, the disclosure of which to any other 2 Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm, including 3 competitive injury, that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.. 4 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as defined 5 herein) and In-House Counsel (as defined herein), as well as their support staff. 6 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 7 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 8 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL - AEO.” 9 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 10 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 11 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 12 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 13 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 14 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 15 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 16 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 17 Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 18 outside counsel. 19 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 20 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action, including support staff. 21 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 22 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 23 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm, which 24 has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff. 25 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 26 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 27 support staffs). 1 Discovery Material in this Action. 2 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 3 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 4 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 5 and their employees and subcontractors. 6 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 7 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL - AEO.” 8 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 9 from a Producing Party. 10 3.

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

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
AirDoctor, LLC v. Homeburg Limited, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/airdoctor-llc-v-homeburg-limited-cacd-2023.