Arya Toufanian v. Kyle Oreffice

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 15, 2021
Docket2:19-cv-07934
StatusUnknown

This text of Arya Toufanian v. Kyle Oreffice (Arya Toufanian v. Kyle Oreffice) 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
Arya Toufanian v. Kyle Oreffice, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 | Lee M. Weinberg (Cal. SBN 131567) 9 || lee@weinberg-gonser.com Shanen R. Prout, of counsel (Cal. SBN 236137) 3 |) shanen@weinberg-gonser.com 4 || WEINBERG GONSER LLP 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1650 5 | Los Angeles, CA 90024 6 || Phone: (424) 239-2850 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT 7 | Attorneys for Plaintiff Arya Toufanian 8 Robert Tauler (Cal. SBN 241964) ? rtauler@taulersmith.com 19 | Valerie Saryan (Cal. SBN 297115) vsaryan@taulersmith.com TAULER SMITH LLP 12 | 626 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 510 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Tel. (213) 927-9270 14 15 Attorneys for Defendants Kyle Oreffice and Give Back Media, LLC

16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—WESTERN DIVISION 18 19 || ARYA TOUFANIAN, an individual, Case No. 2:19-cv—07934 DMG(SKx) 20 Plaintiff, Assigned to the Hon. Dolly M. Gee 71 Courtroom 8C V. 22 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 23 || KYLE OREFFICE, an individual; GIVE | ORDER BACK MEDIA, LLC, a Georgia limited 24 liability company; and DOES 1-10, Action filed: Sept. 12, 2019 25 Trial: June 7, 2022 26 Defendants. 27 28 -l-

1 1. A. 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 following 6 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 7 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 8 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 9 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 12 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 13 information of the parties, as well as private information of the parties’ customers, for 14 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 15 prosecution of this action is warranted. 16 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among 17 other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 20 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 21 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 22 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, 23 to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 24 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 25 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 26 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 27 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 1 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 2 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there 3 is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 4 5 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 6 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 8 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 9 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 10 material under seal. 11 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 12 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non dispositive motions, good 13 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County 14 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 15 F.3d 1206, 1210 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 16 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 17 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 18 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 19 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 20 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not without the submission of 21 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 22 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable constitute 23 good cause. 24 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 25 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 26 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 27 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677 79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 1 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 2 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 3 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 4 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 5 under seal must be provided by declaration. 6 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 7 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 8 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 9 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 10 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 11 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 12 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: [this pending federal law suit]. [*Option: consolidated or 15 related actions.] 16 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 17 designation of information or items under this Order. 18 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 19 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 20 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 21 Statement. 22 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 23 support staff). 24 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 25 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 26 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 27 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 1 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 2 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 4 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 5 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 6 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Mach v. Florida Casino Cruise, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 15 (D. Massachusetts, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Arya Toufanian v. Kyle Oreffice, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arya-toufanian-v-kyle-oreffice-cacd-2021.