First Foundation Inc. v.Thomas Munson Giddings

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 23, 2020·No. 8:20-cv-00359·Unknown

Opinion

1 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership, Including Professional Corporations 2 JENNIFER G. REDMOND, Cal. Bar No. 144790 jredmond@sheppardmullin.com 3 Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 4 Tel: 213.434.9100 Fax: 213.434.3947 Y. DOUGLAS YANG, Cal. Bar No. 307550 5 dyang@sheppardmullin.com 333 South Hope Street, 43rd Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071-1422 Tel: 213.620.1780 Fax: 213.620.1398 7 ISAIAH Z. WEEDN, Cal. Bar No. 229111 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor 8 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Tel: 714.513.5100 Fax: 714.513.5130 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 10 FIRST FOUNDATION INC. and FIRST FOUNDATION ADVISORS 11 PATRICIA L. GLASER, Cal. Bar No. 55668 12 pglaser@glaserweil.com RORY S. MILLER, Cal. Bar No. 238780 13 rmiller@glaserweil.com MICHAEL L. SMITH, Cal. Bar No. 298917 14 msmith@glaserweil.com GLASER WEIL FINK HOWARD AVCHEN & SHAPIRO LLP 15 10250 Constellation Boulevard, 19th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 16 Telephone: (310) 553-3000 Facsimile: (310) 556-2920 17 Attorneys for Defendants 18 THOMAS GIDDINGS and LOUIS ABEL

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 20 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SOUTHERN DIVISION 21 FIRST FOUNDATION, INC., a Case No. 8:20-cv-00359-DOC-KES 22 Delaware Corporation; and FIRST FOUNDATION ADVISORS, a JOINTLY STIPULATED 23 California Corporation, PROTECTIVE ORDER: [PROPOSED] ORDER 24 Plaintiffs, v. 25 Complaint Filed: February 21, 2020 THOMAS MUNSON GIDDINGS, an 26 individual; and LOUIS PANCOAST ABEL, an individual, 27 Defendants. 1 TO THE HONORABLE COURT, ALL PARTIES AND THEIR 2 ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 3 In order to facilitate discovery in the above-captioned matter, Plaintiffs First 4 Foundation Inc. and First Foundation Advisors (together, “Plaintiffs”) and 5 Defendants Thomas Munson Giddings and Louis Pancoast Abel (together, 6 “Defendants”) (collectively, “the parties”) hereby agree to the following Jointly 7 Stipulated Protective Order concerning the CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY 8 CONFIDENTIAL treatment of certain documents and information. 9 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 10 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production 11 of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from 12 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 13 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court 14 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 15 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery 16 and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 17 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 18 applicable legal principles. 19 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 20 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 21 under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 22 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 23 material under seal. Where the Court orders documents to be filed under seal, the 24 Stipulated Protective Order shall be deemed to automatically apply to all documents 25 sealed by order of the Court. 26 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 27 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 1 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is 2 good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 3 1.1 Good Cause For a Protective Order 4 Good cause exists for a Protective Order because both Plaintiffs and 5 Defendant’s document productions will disclose information relating to (1) the trade 6 secrets and confidential business practices of Plaintiffs, which Plaintiffs safeguard as 7 a means to ensure competitiveness in their industry; and (2) private wealth clients’ 8 personal and confidential information, such as their assets under management and 9 other key financial information. See Harmon v. City of Santa Clara, 323 F.R.D. 617, 10 623 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (identifying privacy interests, among others when considering 11 existence of good cause); Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int'l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 12 552, 554 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing trade secrets and confidential business 13 information as legitimate categories of information subject to protection). 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 18 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify 19 for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). This may include, without 20 limitation and without either party conceding that any particular Protected Material is 21 properly designated as such, information regarding personal financial and account 22 information and private communications not related to the subject matter of this 23 litigation. 24 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and 25 House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 26 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 27 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 1 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL– ATTORNEYS’ EYES 2 ONLY.” 3 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 4 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 5 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 6 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 7 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 8 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 9 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 10 2.7 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 11 Information or Items: information that the Producing Party claims in good faith is 12 highly confidential or sensitive, including technical information, pricing and revenue 13 information and other sensitive financial data, and the disclosure of which to another 14 Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be 15 avoided by less restrictive means. 16 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 17 action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 18 outside counsel. 19 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 20 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 21 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 22 party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and 23 have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 24 which has appeared on behalf of that party. 25 2.11 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, 26 directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record 27 (and their support staffs). 1 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this action. 3 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 4 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 6 and their employees and subcontractors.

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

First Foundation Inc. v.Thomas Munson Giddings, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

First Foundation Inc. v.Thomas Munson Giddings (First Foundation Inc. v.Thomas Munson Giddings) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tequila Centinela, S.A. de C.V. v. Bacardi & Co.
242 F.R.D. 1 (District of Columbia, 2007)