Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Alejandro Galindo

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 31, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-03129·Unknown

Opinion

44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1155 COLUMBIA PICTURES INDUSTRIES, Case No. 2:20-cv-03129-SVW-GJSx INC.; AMAZON CONTENT 1166 SERVICES, LLC; DISNEY ENTERPRISES, INC.; PARAMOUNT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 1177 PICTURES CORPORATION; ORDER WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT, 1188 INC.; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS Judge: Hon. Stephen V. Wilson PRODUCTIONS LLLP; UNIVERSAL 1199 TELEVISION LLC; and UNIVERSAL CONTENT PRODUCTIONS LLC, 2200 Plaintiffs, 2211 v. 2222 ALEJANDRO GALINDO and DOES 1- 2233 20, 2244 Defendants. 2255 2266 2277 2288 1. 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 and designated as produced pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.4, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing information or other 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. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 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” or “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” (defined below) for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that (a) it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner and falls within the respective descriptions of these terms set forth below, and (b) there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. As provided for in Section 8 below, to the extent that there is a challenge to the confidentiality designation of any document, the burden of persuasion in any such challenge proceeding shall be on the Designating Party (defined below) to meet the standards as set forth in the applicable laws in order to maintain the designation that they applied. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER As noted above, the parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.4, 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 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 or CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY 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 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. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4. DEFINITIONS 4.1 Action: Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. et al. v. Alejandro Galindo, et al. 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that contain proprietary information, including pricing, rates, customers/subscribers, company security matters, customer lists, financial data and other non-public commercial, financial, research or technical information. 4.4 “CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” Information and Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that contain trade secrets, special formulas, proprietary software and/or computer programs, current or future marketing plans, current or future business plans or strategies, current or future plans for products or services, customer and subscriber data and information, agreements with third parties, information regarding current or future business or financial transactions, internal financial reports or plans, current or future pricing, rates or planning information, financial data, production data, internal no

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

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Alejandro Galindo, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Alejandro Galindo (Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. v. Alejandro Galindo) — 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)