EnvTech, Inc. v. Rutherford

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided April 30, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-00048·Unknown

Opinion

ANTHONY L. HALL, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 5977 AHall@SHJNevada.com SANDRA KETNER, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 8527 SKetner@SHJNevada.com SIMONS HALL JOHNSTON PC 6490 S. McCarran Blvd., Ste. F-46 Reno, Nevada 89509 Telephone: (775) 785-0088 Fax: (775) 785-0087 Attorneys for Plaintiff EnvTech, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ENVTECH, INC. a Nevada Corporation, CASE NO.: 3:21-cv-00048-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, v. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND STIPULATION RICHARD VICTOR RUTHERFORD, an FOR ENTRY OF A QUALIFIED individual, PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants. Plaintiff EnvTech, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “EnvTech”) and Defendant Richard V. Rutherford (“Defendant” or “Rutherford”) (collectively, when possible, “the Parties”) by and through their respective counsel, agree as follows: 1. During the course of this litigation, a party may produce or disclose documents, materials, and information (collectively, “Information”) which are confidential, proprietary and/or contain personal information, financial information, business operations information and/or trade secrets. Similarly, such Information may be disclosed by written discovery, deposition testimony (to the extent taken), or in other filings with the Court. Accordingly, the Parties submit this Confidentiality Agreement and Stipulation for Entry of a Qualified Protective Order (the “Order”) for the approval and enforcement of the Court and hereby agree as follows: 2. All Information produced in this litigation and designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” as provided below shall be used solely for the purpose of the Litigation in which the Parties are involved. With the exception of the related case pending in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 129th Judicial District captioned EnvTech, Inc. v. Taylor, et al. (Cause No. 2021-02657), the parties will not use or disclose any Information marked Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only outside the context of this Litigation, including trial, preparation, and appeal. Any person receiving such Information designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only shall restrict its disclosure to persons authorized to receive the Information designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant to this Order. A Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only designation is applicable to all copies and reproductions of any Information. Nothing herein shall be deemed to restrict the right of the producing party to use its own Information that it has designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only as it chooses. Nothing in this Order requires either party to produce Information the party believes is privileged or otherwise non-discoverable. By entering into this Order, the Parties do not waive any right to object to any discovery request, to the admission of evidence on any ground, to seek further protective order, or to seek relief from the Court from any provision of this Order. 3. Definition of “Confidential” Information: A producing party may designate as “CONFIDENTIAL” such Information which the producing party believes in good faith constitutes, contains, or reflects personal information, business operations information or financial information about a party or other person, or other information that is not generally known to the public. 4. Definition of “Highly Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only” Information: Information may be designated as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” when the designating party reasonably believes that the document contains information that the designating party deems especially sensitive, which may include, but is not limited to, trade secrets, the elements, component, formulas or recipes of chemical products, the methods and processes for developing and implementing neutralization and decontamination using neutral pH chelant information, data, technical marketing, or any other sensitive trade secret or proprietary information. 5. Designating Information as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only”: All or any part of a document, item, testimony, or other Information disclosed, produced, or filed in this litigation may be designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” by any Party, regardless of who disclosed, produced, or filed the document, by marking the word “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” on the face of the original of the document and each page so designated, or on the face of the photocopy of the document, and on the photocopies of each page so designated, except as to documents containing more than twenty (20) pages, in which case marking the top page as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only will suffice. Oral testimony may be designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only during the deposition or proceeding, with reasonable precision as to the affected testimony, or within seven (7) business days after receipt of the transcript of such deposition or proceeding by sending written notice designating, by page and line, the portions of the transcript of the deposition or other testimony to be treated as Confidential or Highly Confidential– Attorney’s Eyes Only. All or any part of responses to interrogatories or to requests for admission or for production of documents may be designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential– Attorney’s Eyes Only on the face of the response and each page so designated. The expense of labeling any information as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” shall be borne by the designating party. 6. Challenging a Designation: Either of the Parties may challenge at any time the propriety of a designation of Information as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only. Before seeking relief from the Court, the Parties shall attempt to resolve the dispute informally and in good faith. If the Parties are unable to resolve such dispute, it shall be submitted to the Court. The Information shall be treated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only pending resolution of the challenge. 7. No Implied Acknowledgement of Confidentiality: Compliance with the terms of this Order, Eyes Only, and/or allowing Information to be designated Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only shall not in any way operate as an admission that any particular Information is Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only. Failure to challenge the designation of Information as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only does not preclude a subsequent challenge. The designation of Information as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only does not create a presumption in favor of or against that designation. 8. Access to Information Designated Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only: a. Without prior written consent of the designating party, Information marked “CONFIDENTIAL” may be disclosed only to: 1. Counsel of record for the respective Parties in the Litigation and their employees, including assisting attorneys, paralegals, and legal or administrative assistants, and vendors to whom it is necessary that the material be shown for purposes of this Litigation, including but not limited to court reporters, videographers, and document vendors; 2. The Parties to this action and their representatives, including in-house counsel; 3. Experts or consultants (including their employees, associates, and/or support staff) who are employed, retained, or otherwise consulted by counsel or a party for the purpose of analyzing data, conducting studies, or providing opinions to assist in any way in the litigation. Information designated Confidential that is accessed by experts or consultants shall be limited to documents that the experts or consultan

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

EnvTech, Inc. v. Rutherford, (D. Nev. 2021).

EnvTech, Inc. v. Rutherford (EnvTech, Inc. v. Rutherford) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)