CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas Corporation v. J. JACKSON WASTE

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 7, 2026
Docket2:25-cv-01949
StatusUnknown

This text of CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas Corporation v. J. JACKSON WASTE (CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas Corporation v. J. JACKSON WASTE) 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
CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas Corporation v. J. JACKSON WASTE, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 J. JACKSON WASTE, SBN 289081 jwaste@fennemorelaw.com 2 FENNEMORE LLP 8080 N. Palm Avenue, Third Floor 3 Fresno, CA 93711 Telephone: (559) 432-4500 4

KEVIN J. ABBOTT, SBN 281312 5 kabbott@fennemorelaw.com 6 FENNEMORE LLP 550 E. Hospitality Lane, Suite 350 7 San Bernardino, CA 92408 Telephone: (909) 723-1700 8 ANTHONY W. AUSTIN, SBN 025351 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 9 aaustin@fennemorelaw.com TYLER D. CARLTON, SBN 035275 (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) 10 tcarlton@fennemorelaw.com FENNEMORE CRAIG, P.C. 11 2394 East Camelback Road, Suite 600 12 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 916-5000 13 Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-claimant, 14 CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas Corporation 15 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 WESTERN DIVISION (LOS ANGELES) 19 INDO-PHILI, INC., a California Case No.: 2:25-cv-01949-JFW-SSC corporation, 20 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 21 Plaintiff/Counter-defendant, ORDER 22 v. Courtroom: 7A Action Filed: March 5, 2025 23 CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas 24 Corporation, 25 Defendant/Counter-claimant. 26 27 28 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 3 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 4 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 6 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 7 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 9 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 10 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve discovery of 12 confidential and proprietary information, including without limitation, commercial 13 and financial information, valuation methods, underwriting-related materials, and 14 information reflecting internal business practices and decision-making. Such 15 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 16 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 17 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 18 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 19 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 20 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 21 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 22 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 23 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 24 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 25 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 26 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 27 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 28 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 1 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 2 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 3 record of this case. 4 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties 5 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 6 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 7 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 8 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 9 under seal. 10 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 11 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 12 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 13 Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd 14 v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. 15 Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 16 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 17 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 18 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 19 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 20 or ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the submission of competent 21 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 22 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 27 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 28 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 1 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 2 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 3 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 6 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 7 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 8 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 9 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: Indo-Phili Inc. v. Circle K Stores Inc., No. 2:25-cv-01949-JFW- 13 SSC. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 15 of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified 19 above in the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: information 21 (regardless of how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 22 for protection under Rule 26(c) and that are so highly sensitive that disclosure to a 23 Receiving Party’s officers, directors, employees, or other non-outside-counsel 24 personnel could create a substantial risk of competitive, commercial, financial, or 25 other serious harm that cannot be avoided by less restrictive means. 26 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 27 their support staff).

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
CIRCLE K STORES INC., a Texas Corporation v. J. JACKSON WASTE, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/circle-k-stores-inc-a-texas-corporation-v-j-jackson-waste-cacd-2026.