David Cavaliere v. Alternative Ventures LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 22, 2025
Docket2:25-cv-00137
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. VENABLE LLP Neal J. Deckant (SBN 322946) Daniel S. Silverman. (SBN 137864) 2 Luke Sironski-White (SBN 348441) Bryan J. Weintrop (SBN 307416) 3 Karen B. Valenzuela (SBN 357231) Zoe E. Gallagher (SBN 355362) 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 4 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Los Angeles, CA 90067 5 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Telephone: (310) 229-9900 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Facsimile: (310) 229-9901 6 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com Email: dssilverman@venable.com 7 lsironski@bursor.com bjweintrop@venable.com 8 kvalenzuela@bursor.com zgallagher@venable.com

9 LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP Attorneys for Defendant Alternative 10 Todd D. Carpenter (SBN 234464) Ventures LLC, dba PRESS’D Scott G. Braden (SBN 305051) 11 1234 Camino Del Mar 12 Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 13 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 14 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com 15 16 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 19 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 20

21 DAVID CAVALIERE and DALLAS Case No. 2:25-cv-137-SRM-RAO LEBLANC, individually and 22 on behalf of all others similarly situated, Hon. Serena R. Murillo 23 Plaintiffs, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 24 v. ORDER

25 ALTERNATIVE VENTURES LLC, d/b/a DISCOVERY MATTER PRESS’D, 26 Action Filed: January 6, 2025 27 Defendant. 1 1. 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 pursuing this litigation may be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 grant the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties acknowledge 7 that this 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 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists of 13 Defendant, and other valuable research regarding the development of Defendant’s 14 PRESS’D 7-Hydroxymitragynine (“7-OH”) tablet products (the “Products”), 15 Defendant’s confidential financial information, and proprietary information for 16 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 17 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 18 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 19 financial information of Defendant, information regarding Defendant’s confidential 20 business practices, Defendant’s confidential research regarding the development of 21 Defendant’s Products, and commercial information (including information 22 potentially implicating privacy rights of third party customers of Defendant), 23 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 24 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 25 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Such documents are generally 26 considered confidential and protected under California law. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 27 26(c)(1) (For good cause, courts may issue an order “requiring that a trade secret or 1 other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed 2 or be revealed only in the specified way”); Geophysical Sys. Corp. v. Raytheon Co., 3 117 F.R.D. 646, 649 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (ordering disclosure of customer lists subject 4 to a protective order). The disclosure of such information absent confidentiality 5 designations may compromise the privacy of Defendant’s third-party customers and 6 may further result in competitive harm to Defendant. 7 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 8 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 9 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 10 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 11 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 12 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 13 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 14 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 15 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 16 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 17 3. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 18 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 19 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 20 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 21 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 22 file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of 23 access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 24 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 25 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 26 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 27 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 1 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 2 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 3 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 4 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 5 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 6 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 7 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 8 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 9 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 10 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 11 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 667-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 12 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 13 under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, 14 supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 15 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal 16 must be provided by declaration. 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 18 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 19 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 20 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 21 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 22 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 23 4. DEFINITIONS 24 4.1 Action: The above captioned federal lawsuit entitled David Cavaliere et 25 al. v. Alternative Ventures LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00137-SRM-RAO. 26 4.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 27 designation of information or items under this Order.

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)
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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
David Cavaliere v. Alternative Ventures LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-cavaliere-v-alternative-ventures-llc-cacd-2025.