Dane Russell v. UL LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 27, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-09736
StatusUnknown

This text of Dane Russell v. UL LLC (Dane Russell v. UL LLC) 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
Dane Russell v. UL LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-09736-FMO-PD Document 19 Filed 05/27/22 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:284

1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP Ari Hersher (SBN 260321) 2 ahersher@seyfarth.com John Yslas (SBN 187324) 3 jyslas@seyfarth.com Ian T. Long (SBN 290975) 4 itlong@seyfarth.com 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor 5 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 6 Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 7 Attorneys for Defendant UL LLC 8

9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 13 DANE RUSSELL, an individual, Case No. 2:21-cv-09736-FMO-PD 14 Plaintiff, JOINT STIPULATED 15 PROTECTIVE ORDER v. 16 UL LLC, a Delaware limited liability Complaint Filed: November 10, 2021 17 company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JOINT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 81073163v.3 Case 2:21-cv-09736-FMO-PD Document 19 Filed 05/27/22 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:285

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 3 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not 7 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 10 principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action may involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable 13 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information 14 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 15 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 16 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 17 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 18 research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating 19 privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, 20 or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 21 statutes, court 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 end 26 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 27 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 28 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a 1 JOINT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 81073163v.3 Case 2:21-cv-09736-FMO-PD Document 19 Filed 05/27/22 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:286

1 good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 2 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 3 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 6 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 7 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 8 material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 11 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 12 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 13 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 14 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and 15 a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support 16 and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 17 to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 18 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 19 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 20 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 21 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 22 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 23 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 24 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 25 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced seal in connection 26 with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 27 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 28 2 JOINT STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 81073163v.3 Case 2:21-cv-09736-FMO-PD Document 19 Filed 05/27/22 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:287

1 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 2 must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 4 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 6 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 7 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 8 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: this pending lawsuit. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 12 information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 14 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 16 Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 20 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 22 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 23 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 24 disclosures or responses to discovery in this Action. 25 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 27 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Dane Russell v. UL LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dane-russell-v-ul-llc-cacd-2022.