Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 30, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-01327
StatusUnknown

This text of Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc. (Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc.) 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
Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ALQOSH ENTERPRISES, INC., and 11 NMRM, INC. CASE NO. 2:25-cv-01327-MRA-JDE 12 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 v. ORDER 14 PEPSICO, INC. and FRITO-LAY 15 NORTH AMERICA, INC. [Note Changes by the Court] 16 Defendants. 17 18 Based on the Parti’s Stipulation (Dkt. 39) and for good cause shown, the 19 Court finds and orders as follows. 20 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 24 warranted. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 25 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 26 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 27 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 28 / / / 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 3 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 4 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 5 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 6 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 7 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 8 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 9 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 10 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 11 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 12 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 13 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 14 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 15 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 16 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 17 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 18 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 19 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 20 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 21 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 22 of the public record of this case. 23 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 24 As set forth in Section 14.3, below, this Order does not entitle the Parties to 25 file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the 26 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 27 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 28 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records 1 in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be 2 shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 3 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 4 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 5 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 6 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 7 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 8 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 9 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 10 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 11 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 12 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 13 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 14 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 15 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 16 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 17 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or 18 introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 19 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 20 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 21 under seal must be provided by declaration. 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 23 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 24 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 25 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 26 27 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 28 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 1 4. DEFINITIONS 2 4.1 Action means the above-captioned matter, Alqosh Enterprises, Inc., 3 and NMRM, Inc. v. Pepsico, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc., 2:25-cv- 4 01327-MRA-JDE. 5 4.2 Challenging Party means a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 4.3 CONFIDENTIAL means any Discovery Material, or any portion 8 thereof, designated as CONFIDENTIAL based on the Producing Party’s 9 reasonable and good faith belief that, in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 26(c), the information or items (regardless of how it is generated, stored 11 or maintained) or tangible things constitutes or reveals: (a) information prohibited 12 from disclosure by statute, contractual agreement, or orders of the Court or 13 regulatory agencies; (b) confidential trade secrets or proprietary business 14 information; (c) Sensitive, non-public personal, client, or customer information 15 concerning individuals or other entities, including but not limited to information 16 that would be considered personally identifiable information under any applicable 17 law; or (d) information that has been designated as Confidential or its equivalent 18 designation in any prior litigation or regulatory proceedings. Information or 19 documents that are available to the public may not be designated as 20 CONFIDENTIAL. 21 4.4 Consultant means a person with specialized knowledge or 22 experience in a matter pertinent to this Action, along with his or her employees 23 and support personnel, who has been retained by a Party or its Counsel to serve as 24 a non-testifying expert or a consultant in this Action, and who (i) is not a current 25 employee or current business consultant of a Party or of a Party’s competitor, or 26 otherwise currently involved in competitive decision-making for a Party or a 27 Party’s competitor, (ii) has not within the 12 months preceding the entry of this 28 Protective Order been an employee or business consultant of a Party or a Party’s 1 competitor, or otherwise been involved in competitive decision-making for a Party 2 or a Party’s competitor and (iii) at the time of retention is not anticipated to 3 become an employee or business consultant of a Party or a Party’s competitor, or 4 to be otherwise involved in competitive decision-making for a Party or a Party’s 5 competitor.

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)
United States v. Conley
4 F.3d 1200 (Third Circuit, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alqosh-enterprises-inc-v-pepsico-inc-cacd-2025.