Catalina Yachts, Inc. v. Sharon Day

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 25, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-04090
StatusUnknown

This text of Catalina Yachts, Inc. v. Sharon Day (Catalina Yachts, Inc. v. Sharon Day) 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
Catalina Yachts, Inc. v. Sharon Day, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 || THE LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL A. KAPLAN Daniel A. Kaplan (SBN 179517) 2 || 555 West Beech Street, Suite 500 San Dicgo, CA 92101 3 || Tel: (61 □ 685-3988 Fax: (61 ) 684-3239 4 || Email: dkaplan@danielkaplanlaw.com 5 || PANAKOS LAW, APC Aaron D. Sadock Esq. (SBN 28213 1) 6 || Veronica E. McKnight, Esq. (SBN 306562) 555 West Beech Street, Suite 500 7 || San Diego, California 92101 Telephone: (619) 800-0529 8 || Email: asadock@panakoslaw.com 9 Email: bmcknight@panakoslaw.com Attorneys for Defendant 10 GERARD DOUGLAS 11 || Additional counsel listed on next page 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES DIVISION 15 16 || CATALINA YACHTS, INC., a Case No. 2:25-cv-04090-SVW-RAO 17 California corporation, 18 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Vv. ORDER 19 20 || SHARON DAY, an individual; Dis. Judge: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson 1 GERARD DOUGLAS, an individual; Mag. Judge: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Courtroom: 10A 22 Action Filed: May 7, 2025 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Doc ID: ¢48ce69b02305F1 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

1 || Michael C. Lieb (SBN 126831) mlieb@ecilaw com 2 || Zoe M. Vallier (SBN 324324) zvallier@ecjlaw.com 3 || ERVIN EN & JESSUP LLP 9401 Wilshire Boulevard, Twelfth Floor 4 || Beverly Hills, California 90212-2974 Telephone: G 10) 273-6333 5 || Facsimile: (310) 859-2325 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff 7 CATALINA YACHTS, INC. 8 || SHUMAKER, LOOP & KENDRICK, LLP Steven M. Berman (SBN 256846) 9 sberman@shumaker.com 101 East Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 2800 10 || Tampa, Florida 33602 Telephone: (813) 229-7600 11 |! Facsimile: (813) 229-1660 . 12 || Attorney for Defendant 3 SHARON DAY 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Doc ID: ¢48cc69b02305f1 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□

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, development, commercial, 13 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection 14 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 15 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 16 consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 17 information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 18 research, development, or commercial information (including information 19 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 20 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 21 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 22 law. Specifically, the parties are aware that confidentiality provisions exist within 23 documents related to the sale of certain assets from Catalina Yachts, Inc. Given the 24 sensitive business and financial information contained therein, the Parties agree 25 this protective order is necessary. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, 26 to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 27 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 1 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 2 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 3 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 4 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 5 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 6 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 7 part of the public record of this case. 8 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 9 SEAL 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 11 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 12 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 13 be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 14 from the court to file material under seal. 15 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 16 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 17 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 18 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. 19 Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. 20 Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 21 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 22 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 23 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under 24 seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 25 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 26 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 27 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 2 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 3 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 4 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 5 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 6 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 7 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 8 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 9 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 10 declaration. 11 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 12 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 13 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 14 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 15 portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 16 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 17 redaction is not feasible. 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Action: Catalina Yachts, Inc. v. Sharon Day et al., Civil Action No. 20 2:25-cv-04090-SVW-RAO. 21 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 22 designation of information or items under this Order. 23 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 24 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 25 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 26 the Good Cause Statement.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Agricultural Insurance v. Potts
26 A. 27 (Supreme Court of New Jersey, 1892)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Catalina Yachts, Inc. v. Sharon Day, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/catalina-yachts-inc-v-sharon-day-cacd-2025.