BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 1, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-05993·Unknown

Opinion

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

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

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

BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc. (BSB Industries, LLC v. Fasthouse, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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