Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 9, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-09631·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-09631-RGK-GJS Document 69 Filed 06/09/22 Page 1 of 18 Page ID #:853

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION COACHELLA MUSIC FESTIVAL, LLC CASE. 2:21-CV-09631-RGK-GJSX AND GOLDENVOICE, LLC., PLAINTIFFS, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED V. PROTECTIVE ORDER1 INC., BLUEHOST INC. D/B/A UNIFIED LAYER, AND DOES 1-20,

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures Case 2:21-cv-09631-RGK-GJS Document 69 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 18 Page ID #:854

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. This is an action for contributory trademark infringement, contributory false designation of origin, and unfair competition. This action is likely to involve valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. The parties assert that the disclosure of this information could give their competitors an edge in future contract negotiations. Good cause therefore exists to maintain this information as confidential. See Encyclopedia Brown Productions, Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc., 26 F. Supp. 2d 606, 614 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (sealing confidential and otherwise undisclosed business information that “may provide valuable insights into a company’s current business practices that a competitor would seek to exploit”). Moreover, Plaintiffs may seek as part of their damages the disgorgement of Defendant’s profits and Defendant is seeking commercially sensitive information such as financial and sales details from Plaintiffs. As a result, the parties anticipate production of financial information and trade secrets not otherwise publicly available, including sales and profit margins. Further, to show the amount of corrective advertising Plaintiffs seek and the damage to their brand, they may produce information concerning their past and current market share or customer base as well as their financial information. Because the public 2 Case 2:21-cv-09631-RGK-GJS Document 69 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 18 Page ID #:855

disclosure of this and other information may harm the parties’ business interest and competitive standing, good cause exists to maintain as confidential information falling within these categories. See, e.g., Hodges v. Apple Inc., Case No. 13-cv-01128, 2013 WL 6070408 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2013) (“Given the nature of Exhibit 4—a spreadsheet that contains financial information—the Court is persuaded that there are compelling reasons to file it under seal.”); SMD Software, Inc. v. EMove, Inc., Case No. 5:08-CV-403-FL, 2013 WL 1091054, at *3 (E.D.N.C. Mar. 15, 2013) (“Defendants urge that these documents contain confidential information such as . . . relative market share . . . the court agrees that they too contain confidential information, the publication of which may harm the parties' business interests and competitive standing. This risk of harm outweighs the public's interest in accessing the documents.”). The examples, types, and categories of information described in this Stipulation are intended as examples and are not intended to limit discovery in this matter or to limit the type or categories of information that may be produced. 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. C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 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; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 3 Case 2:21-cv-09631-RGK-GJS Document 69 Filed 06/09/22 Page 4 of 18 Page ID #:856

standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a Party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a Party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the Party or Non-Party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 4 Case 2:21-cv-09631-RGK-GJS Document 69 Filed 06/09/22 Page 5 of 18 Page ID #:857

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

Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Coachella Music Festival, LLC v. Live Nation Entertainment, 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)