Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 26, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-02603
StatusUnknown

This text of Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, Inc. (Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, 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
Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 GEOFFREY STREHL, individually No. 2:23-cv-02603 JAK (RAOx) and on behalf of all others similarly 11 situated, 12 Plaintiff, [xPxRxOxxPxOxSxExxDx] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 13 v. 14 GUITAR CENTER, INC., 15 Defendant. 16 17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 26 27 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer lists and other valuable 6 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 7 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 8 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential 9 and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 10 confidential business or financial information (such as confidential licensing 11 agreements), information regarding confidential business practices (such as sales, 12 research and development, marketing, or manufacturing information or software 13 code), or other confidential research, development, or commercial information 14 (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties, such as 15 confidential personal medical, financial, or credit information, or information for 16 which a party is under a duty or obligation of confidentiality), information otherwise 17 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 18 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 19 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 20 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 21 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 22 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 23 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 24 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 25 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 26 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 27 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 1 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 2 case. 3 4 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 5 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 6 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 7 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 8 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 9 to file material under seal. 10 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 11 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 12 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 13 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 14 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 15 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 16 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 17 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 18 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 19 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 20 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 21 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 22 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 27 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 1 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 2 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 3 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 6 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 7 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 8 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 9 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 11 2. DEFINITIONS 12 2.1 Action: the civil action captioned Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, 13 Inc., No. 2:23-cv-02603 JAK (RAOx). 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 designation of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 21 their support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 24 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 26 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 27 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 3 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 6 counsel. 7 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 8 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 10 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 11 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 12 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Geoffrey Strehl v. Guitar Center, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/geoffrey-strehl-v-guitar-center-inc-cacd-2024.