Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided May 7, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00235·Unknown

Opinion

WAU 2.40 VV INGVIVE Lb MVVULTICEI OW VeiViicv rPaye +vErca

1 || DANA J. FINBERG (SBN 257459) SARA T. SCHNEIDER (SBN 298103) 2 || JAKE CHRISTENSEN (SBN 327898) ARENT FOX LLP 3 || 55 Second Street, 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94105-3470 4 || Telephone: 415.757.5500 Facsimile: 415.757.5501 5 Attorneys for Defendant 6 || LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC. 7 || ULRICO S. ROSALES (SBN 139809) MEAGHAN SNYDER (SBN 279392) 8 || WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road 9 || Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff 11 || CUTERA, INC. 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 15 16 CUTERA, INC., No. 2:20-cv-0235-KJM-DB 17 Plaintiff, 18 v. 19 STIPULATION TO FILE PROTECTIVE LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC., ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER 20 Defendant. 21 22 Plaintiff Cutera, Inc. ("Plaintiff") and Defendant Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc. ("Defendant"), 23 together the "Parties," by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 24 1. The Parties met and conferred as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f). 25 2. A protective order is needed to protect confidential information likely to be elicited 26 through discovery in this matter. 27 3. The Parties respectfully request that the Proposed Stipulated Protective Order, filed 28 FOX LLP -|- AT LAW STIPULATION TO FILE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

WAU 2.40 VV INGVIVE Lb MVVULTICEI OW VeiViicv rPayet ¢wvrest

1 || concurrently herewith, is made a binding order in the above-captioned matter. 3 4 DATED: May 6, 2020 ARENT FOX LLP /s/ Dana J. Finberg 6 DANA J. FINBERG (SBN 257459) SARA T. SCHNEIDER (SBN 298103) 7 JAKE CHRISTENSEN (SBN 327898) 8 Attorneys for Defendant 9 LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC. 10 DATED: May 6, 2020 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 11 b /s/ Ulrico S. Rosales ULRICO S. ROSALES (SBN 139809) B MEAGHAN SNYDER (SBN 279392) WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 14 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 15 Telephone: (650) 493-9300 16 Attorneys for Plaintiff CUTERA, INC. 18 I hereby attest that concurrence in the filing of this document has been obtained from 19 every Signatory. 20 /s/ Dana J. Finberg DANA J. FINBERG (SBN 257459) 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FOX LLP -2- ae STIPULATION TO FILE PROTECTIVE ORDER AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

MASE 2 IN MMIC OPI I re Ye VV et 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 CUTERA, INC., No. 2:20-cv-0235-KJM-DB 14 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE MAINTAINING 15 Vv. CONFIDENTIALITY IN DISCLOSURE 16 LUTRONIC AESTHETICS, INC., NYORMATIOnt OF PROTECTED Defendant. 17 18 | 1. | PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Because this action involves, inter alia, claims of misappropriation of trade secrets, 20 || disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 22 || use for any purpose other than prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle this litigation may be 23 || warranted. Accordingly, Cutera, Inc. and Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc. (the “Parties’”) hereby stipulate 24 || to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order’’). 25 The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 26 || disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 27 || use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under 28 || the applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in section 12.3 (Filing FOX LLP A La crore em

MASE 2 EUV MVM EV ING INE MMIC OD PIA Ie AY et

1 || Protected Material), below, that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 2 || under seal; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 5.2, 7, and 26, as well as Local Rules 141, 141.1, 143, 3 || and 251, set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when 4 || a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 5 |} 2. DEFINITIONS 6 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 7 || information or items under this Order. 8 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 9 || generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 10 || of Civil Procedure 26(c). 11 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel, as well 12 || as their support staffs. 13 2.4 Designated House Counsel: House Counsel who seek access to “HIGHLY 14 || CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information in this action. 15 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 16 || produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 17 || CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. 18 2.6 Disclosure Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 19 || medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 20 || testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 21 || responses to discovery in this matter. 22 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 23 || the litigation who: (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or 24 || as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s 25 || competitor, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or 26 || of a Party’s competitor./// 27 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 28 || Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Lat -4- FRANCISCO CTIDITT ATIANT TA CTT CG DPATECTIVE APHED ANT DONATECTIVE APNHEP

MASE 2 EUV MVM EV ING INE MMIC OPI I er Ye YO et

1 || Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less 2 || restrictive means. 3 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 4 || Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 5 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 6 || entity not named as a Party to this action. 7 2.11 Qutside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a Party to this 8 || action but are retained to represent or advise a Party to this action and have appeared in this action 9 || on behalf of that Party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that Party. 10 2.12 Party: any Party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 11 || consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 12 2.13 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 13 || Material in this action. 14 2.14 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 15 || (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, 16 || storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 17 2.15 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 18 |} “CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 19 2.16 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 20 || Producing Party. 21/3.

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

Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, Inc. (Cutera, Inc. v. Lutronic Aesthetics, 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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)