Core Focus Consulting 2, LLC v. RenewAge Energy Solutions, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 28, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01809·Unknown

Opinion

Amjad M. Khan (SBN 237325) amjad@bnsklaw.com 11601 Wilshire Blvd #2080 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Tel: (310) 593-9890 Thomas C. Rickeman (SBN 288248) tom@bnsklaw.com BROWN, NERI, SMITH & KHAN LLP 650 Town Center Dr., #520 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: (949) 676-0030) Attorneys for Defendant RENEWAGE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, INC. CORE FOCUS CONSULTING 2, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01809-CV-RAO Plaintiff, District Judge: Hon. Cynthia Valenzuela v. Magistrate Judge: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver R INE CN .,EWAGE ENERGY SOLUTIONS, S OT RI DP EU RLATED PROTECTIVE Defendant. Action Filed: March 6, 2024 Trial Date: October 28, 2025 Plaintiff Core Focus Consulting 2, LLC and Defendant RenewAge Energy Solutions, Inc. hereby stipulate to the following protective order: Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, and/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. 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; the parties must follow the applicable local rules, including 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. This action involves alleged confidential, 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 may 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 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. 2.1 Action: Core Focus Consulting 2, LLC v. RenewAge Energy Solutions, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-01809-CV-RAO. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, including, but not limited to, information contained or disclosed in any materials, including documents, portions of documents, answers to interrogatories, responses to requests for admissions, trial testimony, deposition testimony, and transcripts of trial testimony and depositions, including data, summaries, and compilations derived therefrom that is deemed to be confidential information by any party to which it belongs. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information or items (regardless of how generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that contain or reflect sensitive Confidential Information that the designating party contends are trade secrets and/or commercially sensitive, the disclosure of which could cause harm that could not be avoided absent such designation. 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.12 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, Record (and their support staffs). 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Once a case proceeds to trial, information that was designated as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL or maintained pursuant to this protective order used or introduced as an exhibit at trial becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings to proceed otherwise are made to the trial judge in advance of the trial. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” For material or information that does not become public at tri

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

Core Focus Consulting 2, LLC v. RenewAge Energy Solutions, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Core Focus Consulting 2, LLC v. RenewAge Energy Solutions, Inc. (Core Focus Consulting 2, LLC v. RenewAge Energy Solutions, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)