Brown v. Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.)

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 21, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-00392·Unknown

Opinion

1 Neil M. Kliebenstein (#226060) Lucina Rios (#325856) 2 BOWMAN AND BROOKE LLP 3 1741 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110-1364 4 Telephone: (408) 279-5393 Facsimile: (408) 279-5845 5 Neil.kliebenstein@bowmanandbrooke.com 6 Lucina.rios@bowmanandbrooke.com

7 Attorneys for Defendant Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.), Ltd. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JOHN BROWN, an individual, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-00392-JAM-DMC 12 ) Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 ) vs. ) 14 ) TAKEUCHI MFG. CO. (U.S.), LTD, a ) 15 foreign entity; TAKEUCHI MFG, CO. LTD., ) ) a foreign entity; UNITED RENTALS 16 ) (NORTH AMERICA), INC., a Delaware ) 17 Corporation; UNITED RENTALS INC., a ) Delaware Corporation; AND DOES 1 through ) 18 50, INCLUSIVE, ) ) 19 Defendant(s). ) 20 21 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 23 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 24 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 25 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 26 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 28 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 1 principles. 2 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 3 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer information, and other valuable 4 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which 5 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of 6 this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 7 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 8 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 9 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 10 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 11 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 12 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 13 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 14 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 15 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of 16 the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 17 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 18 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 19 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 20 of the public record of this case. 21 III. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 22 The parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 23 to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must 24 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 25 file material under seal. 26 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 27 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown 28 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), 2 Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 3 protective orders 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 respect to 5 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 6 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent 7 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 8 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 9 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 10 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly 11 tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 12 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought 13 to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 14 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 15 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 16 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 18 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 19 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 20 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 21 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 22 feasible. 23 IV. DEFINITIONS 24 A. Action: John Brown v. Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.), Ltd., et. al., United States District 25 Court — Eastern District, Case No. 2:21-cv-00392-JAM-DMC. 26 B. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 27 information or items under this Order. 28 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 1 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 2 of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 4 staff). 5 E. Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 6 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 8 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 9 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 10 responses to discovery in this matter. 11 G. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 12 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 13 consultant in this Action. 14 H. House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 15 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 16 I. Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal 17 entity not named as a Party to this action. 18 J.

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

Brown v. Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.), (E.D. Cal. 2023).

Brown v. Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.) (Brown v. Takeuchi Mfg. Co. (U.S.)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)