BabyBjorn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 17, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-00446
StatusUnknown

This text of BabyBjorn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc. (BabyBjorn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier 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
BabyBjorn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4

5 BabyBjörn AB Case No. 2:23-cv-00446-AB (RAOx) 6 Plaintiff,

7 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 8 The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc. 9 Defendant. 10 11 12 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 13 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 14 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 15 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting or defending this 16 litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 17 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 18 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures, 19 productions, or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 20 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 21 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 22 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 23 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 24 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 25 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 26 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 27 1 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 2 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 3 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 4 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 5 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 6 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 7 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 8 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 9 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 10 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 11 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 12 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 13 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 14 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 15 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 16 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 17 record of this case. 18 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 19 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 20 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 21 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 22 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 23 to file material under seal. 24 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 25 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 26 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 27 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 1 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 2 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 3 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 4 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 5 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 6 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY 7 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY (as defined below) does not— 8 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 9 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 10 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 11 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 12 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 13 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 14 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 15 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 16 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 17 protection must articulate compelling reasons for the requested sealing order. 18 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 19 must be provided by declaration. 20 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 21 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 22 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 23 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 24 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 25 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 26 2. DEFINITIONS 27 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, BabyBjörn AB v. The Ergo Baby 1 Carrier Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00446-AB (RAOx). 2 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party that challenges the designation of 3 information or items under this Order. 4 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: documents, information 5 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that a 6 Designating Party in good faith reasonably believes qualify for protection under 7 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 8 Statement. 9 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 10 Information or Items: documents, information (regardless of how it is generated, 11 stored or maintained) or tangible things that a Designating Party in good faith 12 reasonably believes qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and deserving of a 14 stricter designation because it contains extremely sensitive CONFIDENTIAL 15 information that, if disclosed to another Party or Non-Party, would create a 16 substantial risk of competitive harm that cannot be avoided by less restrictive 17 means. 18 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 19 their support staff). 20 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 21 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 22 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 23 ONLY.” 24 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items, documents, or 25 information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 26 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 27 things) that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in 1 this matter.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BabyBjorn AB v. The Ergo Baby Carrier Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/babybjorn-ab-v-the-ergo-baby-carrier-inc-cacd-2023.