David Cavaliere v. Alternative Ventures LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 22, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-00137·Unknown

Opinion

Neal J. Deckant (SBN 322946) Daniel S. Silverman. (SBN 137864) Luke Sironski-White (SBN 348441) Bryan J. Weintrop (SBN 307416) Karen B. Valenzuela (SBN 357231) Zoe E. Gallagher (SBN 355362) 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Telephone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com Email: dssilverman@venable.com lsironski@bursor.com bjweintrop@venable.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com zgallagher@venable.com

LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Alternative Todd D. Carpenter (SBN 234464) Ventures LLC, dba PRESS’D Scott G. Braden (SBN 305051) 1234 Camino Del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID CAVALIERE and DALLAS Case No. 2:25-cv-137-SRM-RAO LEBLANC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Serena R. Murillo Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER

ALTERNATIVE VENTURES LLC, d/b/a DISCOVERY MATTER PRESS’D, Action Filed: January 6, 2025 Defendant. 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 pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to grant the following Stipulated Protective Order (“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. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists of Defendant, and other valuable research regarding the development of Defendant’s PRESS’D 7-Hydroxymitragynine (“7-OH”) tablet products (the “Products”), Defendant’s confidential financial information, and 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 of Defendant, information regarding Defendant’s confidential business practices, Defendant’s confidential research regarding the development of Defendant’s Products, and commercial information (including information potentially implicating privacy rights of third party customers of Defendant), 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. Such documents are generally considered confidential and protected under California law. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1) (For good cause, courts may issue an order “requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in the specified way”); Geophysical Sys. Corp. v. Raytheon Co., 117 F.R.D. 646, 649 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (ordering disclosure of customer lists subject to a protective order). The disclosure of such information absent confidentiality designations may compromise the privacy of Defendant’s third-party customers and may further result in competitive harm to Defendant. 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 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. 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, 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 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, 667-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, 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: The above captioned federal lawsuit entitled David Cavaliere et al. v. Alternative Ventures LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00137-SRM-RAO. 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 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Sta

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

David Cavaliere v. Alternative Ventures LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

David Cavaliere v. Alternative Ventures LLC (David Cavaliere v. Alternative Ventures LLC) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)
Geophysical Systems Corp. v. Raytheon Co.
117 F.R.D. 646 (C.D. California, 1987)