Four Jays Music Company v. Apple Inc

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 10, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-07952
StatusUnknown

This text of Four Jays Music Company v. Apple Inc (Four Jays Music Company v. Apple Inc) 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
Four Jays Music Company v. Apple Inc, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 SCseOdTelTm Aan. @EDgiEbLsoMnAduNn,n S.cBoNm 116927 2 ILISSA SAMPLIN, SBN 314018 isamplin@gibsondunn.com 3 2029 Century Park East Suite 4000 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3026 Telephone: 310.552.8500 5 Facsimile: 310.551.8741

6 GABRIELLE LEVIN, pro hac vice glevin@gibsondunn.com 7 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193 8 Telephone: 212.351.4000 Facsimile: 212.351.4035 9 Attorneys for APPLE INC. 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 FOUR JAYS MUSIC COMPANY and CASE NO. 2:19-cv-07952-FMO-MAA 13 JULIA RIVA, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 Plaintiffs, FOR THE TREATMENT OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 15 v. [DISCOVERY MATTER] 16 APPLE INC., GOOGLE LLC, THE ORCHARD ENTERPRISES, INC., Judge: Hon. Fernando M. Olguin 17 ORCHARD ENTERPRISES NY, INC., and CLEOPATRA RECORDS, INC., 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 1. INTRODUCTION 22 1.A Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 23 production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special 24 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 25 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 26 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 27 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 28 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 1 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 2 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 1.B Good Cause Statement. The parties anticipate that documents, testimony, 4 or information containing or reflecting confidential, proprietary, trade secret, and/or 5 commercially sensitive information are likely to be disclosed or produced during the 6 course of this litigation. To expedite the production of discovery material, to facilitate 7 the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery material, to 8 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 9 only the materials the parties are entitled to keep confidential are subject to such 10 treatment, and to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of 11 confidential discovery material in preparation for and in the conduct of this litigation. It 12 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 13 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 14 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 15 should not be part of the public record of this case. 16 1.C Acknowledgement of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further 17 acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file 18 confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 19 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission 20 from the court to file material under seal. 21 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 22 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 23 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County 24 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 25 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 26 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 27 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 28 2 1 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 2 Information that a Party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 3 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not — without the 4 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 5 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 6 constitute good cause. 7 Further, if a Party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 8 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 9 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 10 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 11 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 12 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the Party seeking protection must articulate 13 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 14 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 15 under seal must be provided by declaration. 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 17 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 18 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 19 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 20 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 21 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: this lawsuit, captioned Four Jays Music Co. et al. v. Apple Inc. et. 24 al., NO. 2:19-cv-07952-FMO-MAA. 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 26 information or items under this Order. 27 28 3 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information that is non-public 2 and (i) concerns or relates to proprietary commercial or business information, including, 3 but not limited to, trade secrets, financial data, pricing information, contracts and 4 agreements, sales information, sales or marketing forecasts or plans, business plans, 5 sales or marketing strategy, product development information, engineering documents, 6 testing documents, employee information, and other non-public information; (ii) must 7 be held confidential to protect personal privacy interests; (iii) was obtained from a 8 nonparty pursuant to a current Nondisclosure Agreement (“NDA”); (iv) the producing 9 party is under a legal obligation to maintain as confidential; (v) constitutes or reflects 10 commercial agreements, settlement agreements or settlement communications; and/or 11 (vi) the producing party or non-party in good faith believes is subject to a compelling 12 need for privacy. 13 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL ONLY” Information or Items: 14 information that qualifies as “CONFIDENTIAL” information, and contains extremely 15 sensitive information, the disclosure of which to another party would create a risk of 16 competitive injury, including but not limited to: (i) marketing, financial, sales, web 17 traffic, research and development, or technical, data or information; (ii) commercially 18 sensitive competitive information, including, without limitation, information obtained 19 from a Non-Party pursuant to a current Nondisclosure Agreement (“NDA”); 20 (iii) information or data relating to future products not yet commercially released and/or 21 strategic plans; (iv) trade secret, or other confidential research and development 22 information; and (v) commercial agreements, settlement agreements or settlement 23 communications, the disclosure of which is likely to cause harm to the competitive 24 position of the Producing Party.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Four Jays Music Company v. Apple Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/four-jays-music-company-v-apple-inc-cacd-2020.