Disco Lemonade, Inc. v. Disco Lemonade Designs Ltd.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 21, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-02550
StatusUnknown

This text of Disco Lemonade, Inc. v. Disco Lemonade Designs Ltd. (Disco Lemonade, Inc. v. Disco Lemonade Designs 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
Disco Lemonade, Inc. v. Disco Lemonade Designs Ltd., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02550-SSS-RAO Document 31 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:180

1 JEFFREY T. NORBERG 2 (State Bar. No. 215087) NEAL & MCDEVITT LLC 3 1776 Ash Street 4 Northfield, IL 60093 Telephone: (847) 441-9100 5 Facsimile: (847) 441-0911 6 jnorberg@nealmcdevitt.com 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DISCO LEMONADE, INC. 11 Case No. 2:22-cv-02550-JLS-RAO Plaintiff, 12 v. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 13 PROTECTIVE ORDER1 DISCO LEMONADE DESIGNS 14 LTD., et al.

15 Defendant.

17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 26 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. Case 2:22-cv-02550-SSS-RAO Document 31 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:181

1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer data, pricing lists and 6 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 7 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 8 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 9 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 10 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 11 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 12 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 13 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 14 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 15 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 16 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 17 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 18 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 19 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 20 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 21 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 22 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 23 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 24 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 25 record of this case. 26

27 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-02550-SSS-RAO Document 31 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:182

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 5 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 6 to 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 13 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 14 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 15 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 16 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 17 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 18 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 19 otherwise 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 24 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 25 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 26 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 27 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 28 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Case 2:22-cv-02550-SSS-RAO Document 31 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:183

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. 3 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 4 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 5 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 6 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 11 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 15 the 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. 28 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 4 Case 2:22-cv-02550-SSS-RAO Document 31 Filed 03/21/23 Page 5 of 16 Page ID #:184

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)
Disco Lemonade, Inc. v. Disco Lemonade Designs Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/disco-lemonade-inc-v-disco-lemonade-designs-ltd-cacd-2023.