BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 1, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-05993
StatusUnknown

This text of BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc. (BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, 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
BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 Nicholas D. Myers (State Bar No. 251809) nicholas@themyerslg.com 2 Clifford L. White (State Bar No. 210423) cliff@themyerslg.com 3 Ivan U. Cisneros (State Bar No. 256232) ivan@themyerslg.com 4 THE MYERS LAW GROUP 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 200 5 Newport Beach, California 92660 T: 949.825.5590 6 F: 949.861.6220 E: litigation@themyerslg.com 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff BSB 8 INDUSTRIES, LLC 9 LTL ATTORNEYS LLP Joe Tuffaha (SBN 253723) 10 joe.tuffaha@ltlattorneys.com 11 Tiffany Hansen (SBN 292850) tiffany.hansen@ltlattorneys.com 12 Elizabeth Dinh (SBN 329295) 13 lizzie.dinh@ltlattorneys.com 300 S. Grand Ave., 14th Floor 14 Los Angeles, CA 90071 15 Tel: (213) 612-8900 Fax: (213) 612-3773 16 Attorneys for Defendant FASTHOUSE, 17 INC. 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 20 21 BSB INDUSTRIES, LLC a California Case No. 2:20-cv-05993-SB (ASx) 22 limited liability company, District Judge: Hon. Stanley 23 Plaintiff, Blumenfeld, Jr. Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alka 24 v. Sagar 25 FASTHOUSE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, PROTECTIVE ORDER 26 inclusive, Trial Date: Not Set 27 Defendants. 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 disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 8 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 11 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 12 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 13 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 14 the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 Good cause exists for the entry of this pretrial protective order because this case 17 relates to alleged trademark infringement and Plaintiff alleges that the parties are 18 direct competitors. Anticipated discovery includes confidential commercial 19 information including trade secrets such as private financial information and business 20 plans of both Plaintiff and Defendant. In addition, discovery may include customer 21 and/or supplier lists, sales and revenue information, and advertising and marketing 22 information. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Intern., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 n.4 23 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“Customer/supplier lists and sales and revenue information qualify 24 as ‘confidential commercial information’” under Rule 26.). Disclosure of this 25 information to the other party or the public would be damaging to the parties’ 26 respective business interests. 27 Further, good cause exists for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only protective order 1 allegations of intellectual property infringement that may require production of highly 2 confidential financial, customer, and supplier information. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech 3 Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 556 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“Many cases involving claims of 4 trademark infringement require the production of customer and supplier lists and such 5 lists are customarily produced subject to an ‘attorney’s eyes only’ order.”) 6 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 7 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 8 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 9 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 10 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 11 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 12 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 13 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 14 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 15 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 16 17 2. DEFINITIONS 18 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit. 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 20 of information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 22 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 23 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 24 Cause Statement. 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 26 support staff). 27 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 1 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 2 ONLY.” 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 4 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 5 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 6 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 7 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 8 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 9 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 10 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 11 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” 12 disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 13 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 14 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 15 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 16 counsel. 17 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 18 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 19 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 20 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 21 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 22 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 23 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, shareholders, 24 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 25 (and their support staffs). 26 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 27 Discovery Material in this Action. 1 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 2 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 3 and their employees and subcontractors. 4 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 5 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 6 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 7 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 8 from a Producing Party. 9 10 3.

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

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bsb-industries-llc-v-fasthouse-inc-cacd-2020.