Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Hyperkin Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 9, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-00608·Unknown

Opinion

1 Lynda J. Zadra-Symes (SBN 156,511) lynda.zadrasymes@knobbe.com 2 Jason A. Champion (SBN 259,207) jason.champion@knobbe.com 3 Jacob R. Rosenbaum (SBN 313,190 jacob.rosenbaum@knobbe.com 4 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street 5 Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 6 Phone: (949) 760-0404 Facsimile: (949) 760-9502 7 Attorneys for Defendant 8 HYPERKIN INC.

9 Keith J. Wesley (SBN 229,276) kwesley@bgrfirm.com 10 David D. Kim (SBN 293,445) dkim@bgrfirm.com 11 Eric C. Lauritsen (SBN 301,219) elauritsen@bgrfirm.com 12 Milin Chun (SBN 262,674) mchun@bgrfirm.com 13 BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2800 14 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 274-7100 15 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697

16 Attorneys for Plaintiff ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC. 17 18 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20 WESTERN DIVISION 21 ATARI INTERACTIVE, INC., ) Case No. 2:19-CV-0608-CAS (AFMx) ) 22 Plaintiff, ) Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon

) 23 v. ) [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 24 HYPERKIN INC., ) PROTECTIVE ORDER1 ) 25 Defendant. ) 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model 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 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 6 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 7 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 13 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 15 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 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 20 third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 21 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 22 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 23 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 24 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 25 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 26 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct 27 of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 1 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 2 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that 3 it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 4 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 5 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 6 SEAL 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 8 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 9 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 10 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 11 from the court to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 14 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 15 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. 16 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 17 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 18 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 19 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 20 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 21 to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 22 Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent 23 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 24 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute 25 good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 3 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 4 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 5 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 6 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 7 declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 9 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 10 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 11 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 12 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 13 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 14 redaction is not feasible. 15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Hyperkin Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv- 17 00608 CAS (AFMx). 18 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 19 designation of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 21 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 22 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 23 the Good Cause Statement. 24 2.4 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House 25 Counsel (as well as their support staff). 26 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 27 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 1 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 2 ONLY”. 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 4 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 5 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 6 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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

Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Hyperkin Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Hyperkin Inc. (Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Hyperkin 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)
In re Cleveland
19 A. 17 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1889)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)