Eric Doyle v. FKA Distributing Co. LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 6, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-10807
StatusUnknown

This text of Eric Doyle v. FKA Distributing Co. LLC (Eric Doyle v. FKA Distributing Co. LLC) 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
Eric Doyle v. FKA Distributing Co. LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ERIC DOYLE and GABRIEL CONTRERAS, individually and Case No. 2:23-cv-10807-SPG-SSC 12 on behalf of all similarly situated persons, 13 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff(s), 14 ORDER1 v. 15

FKA DISTRIBUTING CO., LLC 16 d/b/a HOMEDICS LLC, a Michigan limited liability 17 company; WALMART INC., a Delaware corporation; and A&D 18 ENGINEERING INC., a Michigan corporation, 19 Defendant(s). 20

21 22 1. INTRODUCTION 23 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Good cause exists for the entry of this 24 pretrial protective order because the documents that will be sought by the parties 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 in this breach of warranty, unfair competition, and fraud action (relating to 2 defendants’ blood pressure monitors) largely comprise confidential technology, 3 customer information, sales information, business records, and medical records 4 for which the parties derive significant value from keeping such information 5 from the public. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of 6 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 7 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 8 than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 9 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following 10 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 11 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 12 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 13 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 14 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 15 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing 17 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 18 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection 19 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 20 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 21 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 22 proprietary product technology, confidential business or financial 23 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or 24 25 other confidential research, development, or commercial information 26 (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 27 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 1 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, 2 to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 3 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 4 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 5 the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 6 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at 7 the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 8 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 9 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical 10 reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief 11 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 12 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 13 case. 14 Further, good cause exists for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only 15 protective order that designates certain material as “Highly 16 Confidential” since this case involves allegations against direct 17 competitors relating to each of defendants’ proprietary technology that 18 may require production of highly confidential product design, financial, 19 customer, and supplier information, the disclosure of which to the other 20 parties would damage the disclosing party. 21 22 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 23 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 24 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 25 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 26 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 27 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 2 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 3 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 4 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 5 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 6 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 7 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 8 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 9 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 10 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 11 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL ” or “HIGHLY 12 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the 13 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 14 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 15 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 17 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 18 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 19 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 20 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 21 22 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 23 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 24 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 25 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 26 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 27 seal must be provided by declaration. 1 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 2 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 3 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 4 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 5 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: The above-captioned 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 13 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 14 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 15 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 17 18 well as their support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 20 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 21 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 22 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 23 2.6 Direct Competitors: FKA DISTRIBUTING CO., LLC d/b/a 24 HOMEDICS LLC, a Michigan limited liability company, is a direct 25 competitor of A&D ENGINEERING INC., a Michigan corporation, and 26 vice versa.

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)
Boakai v. Gonzales
447 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Eric Doyle v. FKA Distributing Co. LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-doyle-v-fka-distributing-co-llc-cacd-2025.