Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 27, 2020
Docket8:20-cv-00850
StatusUnknown

This text of Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc. (Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, 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
Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

2 Ajansodnre.laa oL@evheanysnoens b(SoBonNe.3c2o3m926) sAteliv Sen. .Rnaaztaaui p(SskByN@ 2k4n6o,b9b2e2.)com andrea.levenson@haynesboone.com ali.razai@knobbe.com 3 HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP Adam R. Aquino (SBN 324,526) 600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 700 adam.aquino@knobbe.com 4 Costa Mesa, California 92626 KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & Telephone: (949) 202-3000 BEAR, LLP 5 Facsimile: (949) 202-3001 2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor Irvine, CA 92614 6 Joseph Lawlor (admitted pro hac vice) Telephone: (949) 760-0404 joseph.lawlor@haynesboone.com Facsimile: (949) 760-9502 7 Richard Rochford (admitted pro hac vice) Benjamin B. Anger (SBN 269,145) 8 richard.rochford@haynesboone.com ben.anger@knobbe.com HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & 9 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 26th Floor BEAR, LLP New York, NY 10112 12790 El Camino Real 10 Telephone: (212) 659-7300 San Diego, CA 92130 Facsimile: (212) 918-8989 Telephone: (858) 707-4000 11 Facsimile: (858) 707-4001 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff Benebone LLC Attorneys for Defendant Pet Qwerks, Inc. 13 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 BENEBONE LLC, Case No.: 8:20-cv-00850-AB-AFM 17 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 18 PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 v. 20 PET QWERKS, INC., 21 22 23 Defendant. 24 25 26 27 28 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 5 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 6 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 9 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 10 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, 13 market research, and other valuable research, marketing, development, 14 commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special 15 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 16 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 17 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 18 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 19 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 20 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 21 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 22 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 23 or common law. Information such as sales volumes, sales units, costs of goods 24 sold, price structures, business costs, profit margins, customer lists, marketing 25 strategies, and competitive business plans may need to be disclosed only to a 26 party’s attorneys due to the potential for competitive harm. Accordingly, to 27 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 28 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 1 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 2 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 3 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 4 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. To 5 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential and to 6 prevent competitive harm, two tiers of confidentiality designations— 7 “CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY EYES 8 ONLY”—are required. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 9 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 10 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 11 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 12 this case. 13 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 14 SEAL 15 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 16 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 17 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 18 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 19 to file material under seal. 20 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 21 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 22 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 23 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. 24 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 25 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 26 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 27 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 28 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under 1 seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 2 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 3 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 4 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 5 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 6 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 7 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 8 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 9 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 10 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 11 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 12 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 13 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 14 declaration. 15 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 16 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 17 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 18 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 19 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 20 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 21 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Action: Case No. 8:20-cv-00850-AB-AFM 23 2.2 Challenging Party:a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 24 designation of information or items under this Order. 25 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless 26 of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 27 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 28 the Good Cause Statement.

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)
Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Benebone LLC v. Pet Qwerks, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benebone-llc-v-pet-qwerks-inc-cacd-2020.