David Faris v. Petit Pot, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 12, 2023
Docket2:23-cv-01955
StatusUnknown

This text of David Faris v. Petit Pot, Inc. (David Faris v. Petit Pot, Inc.) 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 Faris v. Petit Pot, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 IAN K. BOYD (SBN 191434) LISA OMOTO (State Bar No. 303830) 2 E-Mail: iboyd@sideman.com E-Mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com MICHAEL H. HEWITT (SBN 309691) FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP 3 E-Mail: mhewitt@sideman.com 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060 4 SIDEMAN & BANCROFT LLP Los Angeles, California 90067 One Embarcadero Center, 22nd Floor Telephone: (424) 256-2884 5 San Francisco, California 94111-3711 Facsimile: (424) 256-2885 6 Telephone: (415) 392-1960 Facsimile: (415) 392-0827 Counsel for Plaintiff David Faris 7 and the Proposed Classes 8 Attorneys for Defendant Petit Pot, Inc. 9

10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 DAVID FARIS, individually and on 14 behalf of all others similarly situated, Case No. 2:23-cv-01955-JFW-PD

15 DISCOVERY MATTER - STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 16 Plaintiff, ORDER1 17 v. 18 PETIT POT, INC.,

19 Defendant. 20

21 22 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 25 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 1 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 2 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 3 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 4 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 5 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 6 applicable legal principles. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, 9 product formulation, and other valuable research, development, commercial, 10 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 11 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 12 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 13 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 14 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 15 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 16 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 17 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 18 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 19 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 20 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 21 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 22 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 23 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 24 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 25 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 26 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 27 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 5 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 6 file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 12 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 13 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 14 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 15 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 16 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 17 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 18 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 19 protectable—constitute good cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 22 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 23 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 24 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 25 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 26 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 27 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 3 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 4 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 5 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 6 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: Faris v. Petit Pot, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01955-JFW-PD 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 11 the designation of information or items under this Order. 12 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 14 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 15 Good Cause Statement. 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 17 their support staff). 18 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 19 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 20 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 21 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 22 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 23 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 24 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 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 27 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 2 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 3 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)
David Faris v. Petit Pot, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/david-faris-v-petit-pot-inc-cacd-2023.