Castel S.A. v. Christopher A. Wilson

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 23, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-09336·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 CASTEL S.A., a Luxembourg joint Case No. 2:19-cv-9336 ODW (PVCx) stock company (societe anonyme), 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 CHRISTOPHER A. WILSON, an 15 individual; PHAROS CAPITAL PARTNERS II, LP, a Delaware limited 16 partnership; PHAROS CAPITAL PARTNERS II-A, LP, a Delaware 17 limited partnership; OLIVIA HO CHENG, an individual; ARF 18 PARTNERS, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company; AURORA 19 HEALTHCARE US CORP, a Massachusetts corporation; STEVEN J. 20 JAMES, an individual, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties (Dkt. 79), and good cause appearing 25 therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 26 27 / / / 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations 3 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 4 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 5 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 6 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties stipulated to 7 and petitioned the Court to enter the following Protective Order. 8 The parties acknowledged that this Order does not confer blanket protections 9 on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 10 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 11 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties 12 further acknowledged, as set forth in Section 12.4 that this Stipulated Protective 13 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local 14 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 15 be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 16 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 17 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 18 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 19 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 20 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210- 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 21 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 22 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 23 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 24 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 25 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not- 26 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 27 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 2 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 3 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 4 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 5 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 6 under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 7 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 8 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 9 must be provided by declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 11 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 12 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 13 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 14 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 15 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16 1.2 Good Cause Statement 17 This action is likely to involve private personal and financial information, 18 trade secrets, customer information and pricing information and other valuable 19 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 20 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 21 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such private, 22 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 23 things, employment records, confidential business or financial information, 24 information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 25 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 26 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 27 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 1 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 2 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 3 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 4 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 5 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 6 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 7 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 8 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 9 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 10 should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 13 designation of information or items under this Order. 14 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 15 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 16 reflect or contain: (i) proprietary information and literature; (ii) sensitive business 17 or financial information; (iii) confidential research, development, or commercial 18 information; or (iv) private personal or financial information. 19 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and 20 House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 21 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 22 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 23 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 24 ONLY.” 25 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 26 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 27 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 1 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 2 matter pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel 3 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or 4 current employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor, and (3) at the time of 5 retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or of a Party’s 6 competitor. 7 2.7 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 8 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” 9 disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 10 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 11 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 12 action.

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

Castel S.A. v. Christopher A. Wilson, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Castel S.A. v. Christopher A. Wilson (Castel S.A. v. Christopher A. Wilson) — 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)