Famous Birthdays, LLC v. Passes, Inc. and Lucy Guo

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 13, 2026·No. 2:24-cv-08364·Unknown

Opinion

Christopher Beatty (State Bar No. 266466) chris.beatty@katten.com Murad Salim (State Bar No. 342747) murad.salim@katten.com 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067-5010 Telephone: (310) 788-4400 Facsimile: (310) 788-4471 Attorneys for Plaintiff Famous Birthdays, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION

FAMOUS BIRTHDAYS, LLC, a California limited liability Case No. 2:24-cv-08364-CBM- company, SSC Plaintiff,

v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER PASSES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and LUCY GUO, an individual, Assigned to Judge Consuelo B. Marshall, Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. Christensen Defendants.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action involves claims for alleged copyright infringement, computer fraud, unfair competition, and breach of contract, and is likely to involve confidential customer and user information and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, related to the development, marketing, and or/display of copyrighted biographies, information regarding confidential business practices and agreements, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating the privacy rights of third parties), or information otherwise generally unavailable to the public. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. i. DEFINITIONS i.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit, Famous Birthdays, LLC v. Passes, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08364 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. i.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. i.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. i.4 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: Commercially sensitive CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items, disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious commercial, strategic, business, or competitive harm that the Designating Party reasonably believes could not be avoided by less restrictive means. i.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as i.6 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” i.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. i.8 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation, including any support staff, associates, or analysts working with or under the supervision of the Expert, who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. Nothing in this Protective Order purports to alter in any way the requirements for offering testimony under Fed. R. Evid. 703, or to define the term “expert” for purposes other than those addressed in this Protective Order. i.9 Final Disposition: The later of (1) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this Action, with or

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

Famous Birthdays, LLC v. Passes, Inc. and Lucy Guo, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Famous Birthdays, LLC v. Passes, Inc. and Lucy Guo (Famous Birthdays, LLC v. Passes, Inc. and Lucy Guo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)