Exoto Inc. v. Sunrich Company, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 14, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-03754·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 EXOTO INC, ) Case No. 2:21-cv-03754-RGK-JEM ) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) 12 ) ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 v. ) ORDER ) 14 ) SUNRICH COMPANY, LLC, et al., ) 15 ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17

18 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may 22 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 23 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 24 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 25 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 26 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 27 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 28 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists 3 and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 4 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 6 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 7 consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 8 information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 9 research, development, or commercial information (including information 10 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 11 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 12 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 13 common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 14 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 15 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 16 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material 17 in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 18 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 19 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 20 21 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 22 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 23 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why 24 it should not be part of the public record of this case. 25 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 28 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 1 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 2 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 3 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 4 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 5 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause 6 must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 7 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 8 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 9 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 10 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 11 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 12 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party 13 seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 14 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission 15 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to 16 be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 17 protectable—constitute good cause. 18 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 19 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 20 21 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to 22 be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th 23 Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to 24 be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 25 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 26 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 27 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 28 1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 2 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 3 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for 4 public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise 5 protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks 6 to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 7 why redaction is not feasible. 8 4. DEFINITIONS 9 4.1 Action: this pending lawsuit, Case No. 2:21-cv-037854-RGK- 10 JEM. 11 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 12 designation of information or items under this Order. 13 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 14 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 15 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 16 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 17 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 18 as their support staff). 19 20 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 21 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery 22 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 24 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 25 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 26 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 27 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 28 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its 1 counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 3 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 4 other outside counsel. 5 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 6 association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 7 4.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 8 party to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and 9 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 10 firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 11 4.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, 12 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of 13 Record (and their support staffs). 14 4.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 15 Discovery Material in this Action.

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

Exoto Inc. v. Sunrich Company, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Exoto Inc. v. Sunrich Company, LLC (Exoto Inc. v. Sunrich Company, LLC) — 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)