Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Management LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 19, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-10376
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 Stephen G. Larson (SBN 145225) slarson@larsonllp.com 2 Catherine S. Owens (SBN 307626) cowens@larsonllp.com 3 Tyler J. Franklin (SBN 324281) tfranklin@larsonllp.com 4 Jasmine M. Johnson (SBN 351979) jjohnson@larsonllp.com 5 LARSON LLP 555 South Flower Street, 30th Floor 6 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone:(213) 436-4888 7 Facsimile: (213) 623-2000 8 Attorneys for Defendant CLEANLINE MANAGEMENT LLC 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 11 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 12 GREENMOUNT LLC, CASE NO. 2:23-CV-10376-MRA-RAO 13 Plaintiff, Hon. Rozella A. Oliver 14 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 CLEANLINE MANAGEMENT LLC, 16 NICHOLAS COBURN, and DOES 1- 17 10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 NICHOLAS COBURN, 21 Counterclaimant, 22 vs. 23 GREENMOUNT, LLC, THAIR 24 DAOUD, STEVEN DAOUD, AND ZAID JADAN 25 26 Counterdefendants. 27 28 1 WHEREAS, Plaintiff and Counterdefendants Greenmount LLC, Thair Daoud, 2 Steven Daoud, and Zaid Jadan (collectively, “Greenmount”), Defendant Cleanline 3 Management, LLC (“Cleanline”), and Defendant and Crossclaimant Nicholas Coburn 4 (“Coburn”) (collectively, the “Parties”) may produce or seek discovery of documents, 5 information, or other materials that may contain or relate to personal, sensitive, 6 employment, and/or confidential information of another party or third party; 7 The Parties hereby enter into this Stipulated Protective Order as follows: 8 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 9 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary or 10 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 11 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 12 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 13 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 14 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 15 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 16 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 17 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 18 This action may potentially involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 19 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 20 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 21 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 22 proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other things, confidential 23 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or 24 other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 25 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 26 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 27 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. By 28 virtue of entering into this stipulation, however, the parties do not agree that any particular 1 information that may be produced in this case constitutes trade secrets or should otherwise 2 be subject to protection from public disclosure. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 3 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 4 materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 5 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 6 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 7 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified 8 in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 9 confidential or attorneys’ eyes only - confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing 10 be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 11 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 12 of this case. 13 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 14 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 15 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 16 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 17 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 18 under seal. 19 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 20 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 21 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 22 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 23 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 24 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a 25 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 26 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 27 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 28 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY – CONFIDENTIAL” does not— 1 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 2 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 3 protectable—constitute good cause. 4 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 5 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 6 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 7 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 8 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection 9 with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 10 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. 11 Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must 12 be provided by declaration. 13 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 14 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 15 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 16 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. 17 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an 18 explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 19 2. DEFINITIONS 20 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit. 21 2.2 “ATTORNEYS EYE ONLY – CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: 22 information designated (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible 23 things that includes extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items,” for 24 which the Designating Party has made a specific showing of substantial risk of competitive, 25 financial, or personal harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. This type 26 of information and items include, for example, trade secret information, financial 27 projections, prospective marketing plans and business strategy, or other highly sensitive, 28 1 non-confidential information that will cause direct damage to the party if such information 2 were to be disclosed.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Greenmount LLC v. Cleanline Management LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/greenmount-llc-v-cleanline-management-llc-cacd-2025.