Design Collection, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 26, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-05166
StatusUnknown

This text of Design Collection, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd. (Design Collection, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd.) 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
Design Collection, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 28 Filed 01/26/23 Page 1ofi7 Page ID #:138 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Design Collection, INC., a California Case No.: 2:22-cv-05166-PA-JEM 11 corporation, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 12 1 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 VS. 14 ZOETOP BUSINESS CoO., LTD., 5 individually and doing business as “SHEIN”, a Hong Kong private 16 limited company; SHEIN 7 DISTRIBUTION CORP., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, 18 19 Defendants. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2:22-cv-05166-PA-JEM Document 28 Filed 01/26/23 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:139

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 As the parties have represented that discovery in this action is likely to 3 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which 4 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, this Court enters the following 6 Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 7 or responses to discovery. The protection it affords from public disclosure and use 8 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 9 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve customer and pricing lists and valuable 12 development, commercial, financial, and/or proprietary information for which 13 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 14 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 15 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business and financial 16 information, information regarding confidential business practices, other 17 confidential development and commercial information (including information 18 implicating privacy rights of third parties), and information otherwise generally 19 unavailable to the public or which may be protected from disclosure under state or 20 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 21 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 22 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 23 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 24 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 25 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 26 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 27 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 28 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 2 Case 2:22-cv-05166-PA-JEM Document 28 Filed 01/26/23 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:140

1 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 2 should not be part of the public record of this case. 3 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 6 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 7 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 8 to file material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 11 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 12 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 13 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 14 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 15 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 16 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 17 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 18 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 19 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 20 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 21 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 23 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 24 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 25 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 26 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 27 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 28 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 3 Case 2:22-cv-05166-PA-JEM Document 28 Filed 01/26/23 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:141

1 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 2 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 5 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 6 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 7 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 8 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 12 designation of information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 14 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 15 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 16 the Good Cause Statement. 17 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 18 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or 19 Items, the disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a 20 substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 21 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 22 their support staff). 23 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 24 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 25 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES 26 ONLY.” 27 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 28 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 4 Case 2:22-cv-05166-PA-JEM Document 28 Filed 01/26/23 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:142

1 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 2 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 4 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 5 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 6 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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)
Design Collection, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/design-collection-inc-v-zoetop-business-co-ltd-cacd-2023.