Fischler Kapel Holdings, LLC v. Flavor Producers, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 24, 2022·No. 2:19-cv-10309·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2)119-cv-10309-FWS-GJS Document 117 Filed 08/24/22 Page1of17 Page ID #:2260

] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 I IrCetal. RAPED HOLDINGS» Case No. 2:19-CV-10309-FWS-GJS 12 Plaintiff, 3 y. ORDER ED PROTECTIVE

14 FLAVOR PRODUCERS, LLC, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 l. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 8 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 disclosure and use extends

26 27 4g || | This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures.

Case 2)119-cv-10309-FWS-GJS Document 117 Filed 08/24/22 Page 2of17 Page ID #:2261

1 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 |} under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 5 || other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 6 || proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 7 || from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 8 || confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 9 || things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 10 || confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 11 || commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 12 || parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 13 || privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 14 || court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 15 || information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 16 || discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 17 || confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 18 || such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 19 || at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 20 || information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 21 || will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 22 || designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 23 || non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 24 || record of this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 || Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 28 || under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed

Case 2)19-cv-10309-FWS-GJS Document 117 Filed 08/24/22 Page3of17 Page ID #:2262

1 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 2 || to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 8 || Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 9 |} require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 10 || reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 11 || respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 12 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or “HIGHLY 13 || CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the 14 || submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 15 || sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 16 || protectable—constitute good cause. 17 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 18 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 19 || relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 20 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 21 || each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 22 || under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 23 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 24 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 25 || the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 26 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 27 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 28 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document Filed 08/24/22 Page4of17 Page ID #:2263

1 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 2 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 3 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4 || 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: Fischler Kapel Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Flavor Producers, LLC, 6 || et al., Case Number 2:19-CV-10309-FWS-GJS. 7 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 8 || designation of information or items under this Order. 9 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 10 || how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 11 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 12 || the Good Cause Statement. 13 24 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 14 || Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or 15 || maintained) or tangible things which the disclosing party or non-party considers in 16 || good faith to contain information involving highly sensitive trade secrets or 17 || confidential business or financial information, the disclosure of which would result 18 || in the disclosure of trade secrets or other highly sensitive research, development, 19 || production, personnel, commercial, market, financial, or business information, the 20 || disclosure of which the disclosing Party reasonably believes could cause harm to the 21 || business operations of the disclosing Party or provide improper business or 22 || commercial advantage to others. 23 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 24 || their support staff).

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

Fischler Kapel Holdings, LLC v. Flavor Producers, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Fischler Kapel Holdings, LLC v. Flavor Producers, LLC (Fischler Kapel Holdings, LLC v. Flavor Producers, 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)