Daniel Litman and Paige Lopynski, collectively P/K/A “Bonnie X Clyde” v. Lowly Palace, LLC, Create Music Group, Inc. and CBMG, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 10, 2026
Docket2:26-cv-03404
StatusUnknown

This text of Daniel Litman and Paige Lopynski, collectively P/K/A “Bonnie X Clyde” v. Lowly Palace, LLC, Create Music Group, Inc. and CBMG, LLC (Daniel Litman and Paige Lopynski, collectively P/K/A “Bonnie X Clyde” v. Lowly Palace, LLC, Create Music Group, Inc. and CBMG, 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
Daniel Litman and Paige Lopynski, collectively P/K/A “Bonnie X Clyde” v. Lowly Palace, LLC, Create Music Group, Inc. and CBMG, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Opinion

1 ELLIOT GIPSON PC ELLIOT B. GIPSON (State Bar No. 234020) 2 EGipson@elliotgipson.com BRIANNA N. LOGAN (State Bar No. 347947) 3 BLogan@elliotgipson.com 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 835 4 Los Angeles, California 91403 Telephone: 310.817.1268 5

6 Attorneys for Defendants Lowly Palace, LLC, Create Music Group, Inc. and CBMG, LLC 7

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 DANIEL LITMAN, an Case No. 2:26:cv-03404-JLS-RAO 13 individual, and PAIGE LOPYNSKI, an individual, 14 collectively P/K/A “BONNIE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 X CLYDE” 15 DISCOVERY MATTER Plaintiffs 16 Judge: Hon. Jospehine L. Staton v. Courtroom: 8A, 8th Floor 17 LOWLY PALACE, LLC, a Magistrate: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver 18 Delaware limited liability Courtroom: 590, 5th Floor company, CRATE MUSIC 19 GROUP, INC., a Delaware FAC filed: March 24, 2026 corporation, and CBMG, LLC, Removal filed: March 30, 2026 20 a Delaware limited liability Trial Date: TBD company, DOES 1-18 21 inclusive,

22 Defendants. 23

25 26

27 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 12 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action is likely to involve confidential, non-public contracts, revenue 14 statements, and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 15 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 16 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 17 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 18 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 19 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 20 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 21 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 22 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 23 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 24 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 25 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 26 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 27 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 1 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 2 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 3 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 4 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 5 should not be part of the public record of this case. 6 7 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 10 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 11 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 12 to file material under seal. 13 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 14 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 15 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 16 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 17 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 18 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 19 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 20 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 21 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 22 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 23 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 24 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 25 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 27 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 1 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 2 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 3 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 4 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 5 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 6 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 8 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 9 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 10 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 11 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 12 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: Daniel Litman et al v. Lowly Palace, LLC et al (Case No. 2:26- 16 CV-03404-JLS-RAO). 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 18 designation of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” Information or 20 Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or 21 tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 23 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 24 their support staff). 25 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 26 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 27 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 2 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 3 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 4 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 5 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 6 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 7 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 8 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 9 counsel.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Daniel Litman and Paige Lopynski, collectively P/K/A “Bonnie X Clyde” v. Lowly Palace, LLC, Create Music Group, Inc. and CBMG, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/daniel-litman-and-paige-lopynski-collectively-pka-bonnie-x-clyde-v-cacd-2026.