Christophe Kloussing v. ThoughtFocus, Inc

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 10, 2024·No. 8:24-cv-02087·Unknown

Opinion

1 YygEaSllEegNoIsA@ GmAwLeL.cEoGmO S ( SBN 231852) 2 MEGAN A. LEE (SBN 352230) malee@mwe.com 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206 Telephone: +1 310 277 4110 5 Facsimile: +1 310 277 4730

6 Attorneys for Defendant THOUGHTFOCUS, INC. 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CHRISTOPHE KLOUSSING, an CASE NO.: 8:24-CV-02087-DOC-KES 11 individual, Hon. Karen E. Scott 12 Plaintiffs, Courtroom: 6D

13 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 THOUGHTFOCUS, INC. a Delaware corporation; NAGANAND 15 JAGADEESH, an individual; Complaint Filed: July 12, 2024 SANTHOSH ANANTHAKRISHNAN; Removed: September 25, 2024 16 an individual; SHYLESH KRISHNAN, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. 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 be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 6 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 7 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 8 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 9 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 10 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 11 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 12 confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 13 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 14 permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, 17 customer information and other valuable research, development, commercial, 18 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 19 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 20 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 21 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 22 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 23 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 24 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 25 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 26 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 27 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 28 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 1 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 2 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 3 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 4 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 5 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 6 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 7 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 8 part of the public record of this case. 9 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 11 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 12 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 13 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 14 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 15 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 16 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 17 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 18 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 19 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 20 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 21 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 22 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 23 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 24 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 25 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 26 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 28 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 1 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 2 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 3 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 4 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 5 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 6 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 7 under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 9 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 10 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 11 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 12 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 13 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 4. DEFINITIONS 15 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Christophe Kloussing v. 16 ThoughtFocus, Inc., Case No. 8:24-cv-02087-DOC-KESx. 17 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 18 of information or items under this Order. 19 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 20 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 21 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 22 Cause Statement. 23 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 24 their support staff). 25 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 26 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 27 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 1 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 2 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 3 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 4 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 5 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 6 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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

Christophe Kloussing v. ThoughtFocus, Inc, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Christophe Kloussing v. ThoughtFocus, Inc (Christophe Kloussing v. ThoughtFocus, Inc) — 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)