Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Management LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 19, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-10376·Unknown

Opinion

Stephen G. Larson (SBN 145225) slarson@larsonllp.com Catherine S. Owens (SBN 307626) cowens@larsonllp.com Tyler J. Franklin (SBN 324281) tfranklin@larsonllp.com Jasmine M. Johnson (SBN 351979) jjohnson@larsonllp.com 555 South Flower Street, 30th Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone:(213) 436-4888 Facsimile: (213) 623-2000 Attorneys for Defendant CLEANLINE MANAGEMENT LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION GREENMOUNT LLC, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-10376-MRA-RAO Plaintiff, Hon. Rozella A. Oliver vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER CLEANLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, NICHOLAS COBURN, and DOES 1- 10, inclusive, Defendants. Counterclaimant, vs. GREENMOUNT, LLC, THAIR ZAID JADAN Counterdefendants. WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Counterdefendants Greenmount LLC, Thair Daoud, Steven Daoud, and Zaid Jadan (collectively, “Greenmount”), Defendant Cleanline Management, LLC (“Cleanline”), and Defendant and Crossclaimant Nicholas Coburn (“Coburn”) (collectively, the “Parties”) may produce or seek discovery of documents, information, or other materials that may contain or relate to personal, sensitive, employment, and/or confidential information of another party or third party; The Parties hereby enter into this Stipulated Protective Order as follows: 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action may 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 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. This action may potentially involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists 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, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. By virtue of entering into this stipulation, however, the parties do not agree that any particular information that may be produced in this case constitutes trade secrets or should otherwise be subject to protection from public disclosure. 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 or attorneys’ eyes only - 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 be part of the public record of this case. C. 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 Civil 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 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 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” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – 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. Pacific 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 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 2.2 “ATTORNEYS EYE ONLY – CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information designated (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that includes extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items,” for which the Designating Party has made a specific showing of substantial risk of competitive, financial, or personal harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. This type of information and items include, for example, trade secret information, financial projections, prospective marketing plans and business strategy, or other highly sensitive, non-confidential information that will cause direct damage to the party if such information were to be disclosed. 2.3 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule o

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

Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Management LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Management LLC (Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Management LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related