Equate Media, Inc. v. Disha Virendrabhai Suthar

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 17, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00314·Unknown

Opinion

1 BETY JAVIDZAD (SBN 240598) DENTONS US LLP 2 601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2500 Los Angeles, California 90017-5704 3 Telephone: (213) 243-6115 Facsimile: (213) 623-9924 4 bety.javidzad@dentons.com 5 TONY K. LU (admitted Pro Hac Vice) DENTONS US LLP 6 One Beacon Street, Suite 25300 Boston, MA 02108-3107 7 Telephone: (617) 235 6817 Facsimile: (617) 235 6899 8 tony.lu@dentons.com 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs EQUATE MEDIA, INC., BUDGET VAN 10 LINES INC.; QUOTE RUNNER, LLC; and HOME EXPERT, INC. 11 14 15 EQUATE MEDIA, INC., a Nevada No. 2:21-cv-00314-RGK-AGR corporation; BUDGET VAN LINES, 16 INC., a New York corporation; STIPULATED PROTECTIVE QUOTE RUNNER, LLC., a Wyoming ORDER 17 limited liability company; and HOME EXPERT, INC., a Nevada corporation, 18 Plaintiffs, Action Filed: January 13, 2021 19 Trial Date: None Set vs. 20 DISHA VIRENDRABHAI SUTHAR; 21 VARUNKUMAR SUTHAR; PRIME MARKETING, LLC., a Nevada limited 22 liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 12 This action involves alleged trade secrets concerning marketing data, source 13 code, and other valuable customer data, as well as commercial, financial, technical 14 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure 15 and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 16 Such alleged confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 17 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 18 regarding confidential business and marketing intelligence and data (including 19 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), technical information, 20 customer preferences and pricing, information otherwise generally unavailable to 21 the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 22 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, 23 to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 24 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 25 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 26 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 27 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 28 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 1 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential or 2 Attorneys Eyes Only for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without 3 a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, 4 and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. UNDER SEAL 6 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information or 9 “Attorneys Eyes Only” documents under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the 10 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 11 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 14 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 15 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 16 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 17 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 18 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 19 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 20 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 21 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 22 or ATTORNEY EYES ONLY CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 23 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 24 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 25 protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 28 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 3 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 4 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 5 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 6 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 7 declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 8 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can 9 be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 10 viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 11 portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 12 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 13 redaction is not feasible. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.0 “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” Information or Items: As used in this 16 Order, the terms “Highly Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” may be used 17 interchangeably and mean information designated by the producing party that such 18 party contends is Confidential Information constituting the parties’ extremely 19 sensitive information, the disclosure of which, even if limited to the restrictions and 20 treated as Confidential Information in this Order, would nevertheless result in 21 serious competitive harm to the disclosing party if disclosed to the other party and 22 which would reveal: sensitive financial information, product development or 23 strategic business planning specific to a customer; or other customer information 24 which may be covered by applicable non-disclosure agreement(s). 25 2.1 Action: Equate Media, Inc. et al. v. Disha Virendrabhai Suthar et al. 26 (Case No. 2:21-CV-00314-RGK-AGR) 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 28 designation of information or items under this Order. 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 2 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 3 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 4 the Good Cause Statement.

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

Equate Media, Inc. v. Disha Virendrabhai Suthar, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Equate Media, Inc. v. Disha Virendrabhai Suthar (Equate Media, Inc. v. Disha Virendrabhai Suthar) — 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)
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)