Boost Beauty, LLC v. Woo Signatures, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 27, 2019·No. 2:18-cv-02960·Unknown

Opinion

Case 9:18-cv-02960-CAS-E Document 55-1 Filed 08/27/19 Page 1of16 Page ID #:513 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 WESTERN DIVISION 14 15 || BOOST BEAUTY, LLC, a California Case No. 2:18-cv-02960-CAS-E limited liability company, 16 Plaintiff {SED )| STIPULATED 17 PROTECTIVE ORDER Vv. 18 WOO SIGNATURES, LLC, a [DISCOVERY MATTER] 19 || California limited liability company; TADEH BOOGHOSIA SSARDABIL, 49 || an individual; FARSHID KARAMZAD GOFLSAZ, an individual; ARASH 91 || SEDIGHI, an individual; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case :18-cv-02960-CAS-E Document 55-1 Filed 08/27/19 Page 2 0f16 Page ID #:514

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 to 6 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 || 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 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, 22 || court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 23 || information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 24 || discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 25 || confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 26 || such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 97 || at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 28 || information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information anon siipULaTib PROTEGHIVEORDER

Case :18-cv-02960-CAS-E Document 55-1 Filed 08/27/19 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:515

1 || will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 2 ||designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 3 || non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 4 |\record of this case. 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 g |l under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 9 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 10 ||to file 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, 13 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 14 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 15 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 16 ||Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 17 ||require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 18 ||reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 19 □□ respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 20 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 1 || without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 22 || material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 23 || otherwise protectable—constitute 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 26 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 97 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 28 |leach item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced as SIPULATID PROTECTIVEORDER SSCS

Case }:18-cv-02960-CAS-E Document 55-1 Filed 08/27/19 Page 4of16 Page ID #:516

1 || under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 2 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 3 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 4 ||the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 6 |lits entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 7 |\1f documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 8 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 9 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 10 □□ entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 ||2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Boost Beauty, LLC v. Woo 13 || Signatures, LLC et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:18-cv-02960-CAS-E. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 || designation of information or items under this Order. 16 23 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 ||how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 || the Good Cause Statement. 20 24 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — Attorneys’ Eyes Only” Information or 21 ||Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or 22 |\tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ||26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. This designation is 4 || limited to material that is so commercially sensitive that a party would be at a severe 5 || economic disadvantage if its competitors were able to review the material. Examples 26 ||of HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -— Attorneys’ Eyes Only material include, but are not 97 || limited to, customer lists and trade secrets.

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

Boost Beauty, LLC v. Woo Signatures, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Boost Beauty, LLC v. Woo Signatures, LLC (Boost Beauty, LLC v. Woo Signatures, LLC) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)