Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided April 21, 2022·No. 2:17-cv-02085·Unknown

Opinion

R. Michael West (SBN 84336) mwest@saciplaw.com 1922 21St Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916) 444-5444 Catherine Ashley Straight (SBN 119339) cstraight@cas-law.com LAW OFFICES OF 1922 21st Street Sacramento, CA 95811 Telephone: (916)-599-1845 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Paul W. Reidl (SBN 155221) Christopher Passarelli (SBN 241147) Brett Leininger (SBN 329579) DICKENSON, PEATMAN & FOGARTY 1500 First Street, Suite 200 Napa, CA 94559 Telephone: (707) 252-7122

Attorneys for Defendants

APPLE HILL GROWERS, Case No. 2:17-cv-02085-TLN-CKD

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

v.

BRAD VISMAN, KANDI VISMAN, and MASON VISMAN,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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. 2. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL The parties further acknowledge that: this Stipulation and Order creates no entitlement to file confidential information or items under seal; Eastern District Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures which must be followed and reflects the standards which will be applied when a party seeks permission 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. A party seeking to seal a judicial record then bears the burden

of overcoming this strong presumption by meeting the "compelling reasons" standard. See, Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). 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” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 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. 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. 3. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve some sensitive information for which special protection from public disclosure, and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action, is warranted. Such information otherwise is generally unavailable to the public, or may be privileged or otherwise

protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c), the Parties set forth the following types of information which are eligible for protection under this Order, along with the need therefor: A. Information with includes identifying account numbers, for example, Social Security or Taxpayer Identification numbers, and/or financial account numbers, and other information requiring redaction under LR 140(a). Public disclosure of some of this information is prohibited by law; and, public disclosure of financial account and other sensitive information exposes Parties and Non-parties to risk of unauthorized access to such accounts and/or information. Such documents may be designated as

“CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” to ensure the Parties’ compliance with the Federal Rules and Local Rules respecting Privacy Concerns And Redaction [FRCP Rule 5.2 and LR 140(a) and (b)]. Provided the Parties comply with the foregoing Rules prior to use or disclosure, the portions of the document or information, which do not require redaction in such document or

information, may be used in the instant action only. B. Trade Secret information, such as formulas for certain food products made and sold by the Parties, and customer lists. The Parties could sustain loss of income if Trade Secret information is disclosed. However, only information which is not publicly available is eligible for protection. By way of example, the vast majority of the Parties’ “customers” are members of the general public, many of whom self-identify as such customers on social media and/or “sign-up” with a Party via website or social media interfaces. Information regarding and the identity of these customers is not confidential. Likewise, customers of a Party who are identified on their various websites or social media accounts are not necessarily confidential. Any claim of

confidentiality in a “trade secret” or a “customer list” will require a statement of the particularized need for protection to support good cause for designation as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” C. There may be sensitive financial information of the Parties, which information is not in the public record, the public disclosure of which could result in harm. Accordingly, with respect to such information, if a Party makes a designation as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” in connection therewith, the proposed Protected Material shall be accompanied by a statement setting

forth good cause or compelling reasons, with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, for the “CONFIDENTIAL” or the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” designation. The need for protection of confidential materials is best addressed via a Court Order in light of the fact that there are several Parties, including several individuals as well as corporations having

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

Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc. (Apple Hill Growers v. El Dorado Orchards, Inc.) — 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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)