David Ettedgui v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 27, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-08053·Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DAVID ETTEDGUI, an individual, on Case No. 2:20-cv-08053-MCS(JDEx) 11 behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 Plaintiff, 13

14 vs.

15 WB STUDIO ENTERPRISES INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18

19 Based on the parties’ stipulation (Dkt. 57, 57-1), and for good cause shown, 20 the Court finds and orders as follows. 21 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 23 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 24 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 25 warranted. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 26 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 27 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 28 1 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 2 principles. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, financial, technical and/or 5 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 6 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 7 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 8 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 9 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 10 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 11 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 12 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 13 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 14 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 15 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 16 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 17 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 18 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 19 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 20 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 21 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 22 23 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 24 part of the public record of this case. 25 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL PROCEDURE 26 As set forth below, this Protective Order does not entitle parties to file 27 confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 28 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 1 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption 2 that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil 3 cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to 4 support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 5 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 6 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 7 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 8 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 9 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 10 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 11 Disclosure or Discovery Material as confidential does not— without the 12 submission of competent evidence by declaration establishing that the material 13 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 14 protectable—constitute good cause. 15 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 16 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 17 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 18 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 19 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 20 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 21 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 22 23 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 24 under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 26 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 27 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 28 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 1 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 2 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 4. DEFINITIONS 4 4.1 Action: David Ettedgui v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc., pending before 5 the United States District Court for the Central District, Case Number 2:20-cv- 6 08053-MCS (JDEx). 7 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 8 designation of information or items under this Order. 9 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 10 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 the Good Cause Statement. 13 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff). 15 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 18 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 19 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 20 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 21 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 22 23 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 25 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys employed by a party to this Action. House 27 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 28 1 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 2 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 4 party to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have 5 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 6 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 7 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 8 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 9 support staffs).

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

David Ettedgui v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

David Ettedgui v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc. (David Ettedgui v. WB Studio Enterprises Inc.) — 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)
Dvc-Jpw Investors v. Norman H. Gershman
5 F.3d 1172 (Eighth Circuit, 1993)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)