GS Holistic, LLC v. One Stop Vape

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 22, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-08060
StatusUnknown

This text of GS Holistic, LLC v. One Stop Vape (GS Holistic, LLC v. One Stop Vape) 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
GS Holistic, LLC v. One Stop Vape, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3

4 GS HOLISTIC, LLC, Case No.: 2:24-cv-08060 CV 5 Plaintiff(s), (SSCx)

6 v. [DISCOVERY MATTER]

7 ONE STOP VAPE, et al. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 8 ORDER1

9 Defendant(s).

12 1. INTRODUCTION 13 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 14 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 15 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 16 17 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 18 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter 19 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 20 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 21 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 22 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 23 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 24 principles. 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, and other valuable 3 development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 4 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 5 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. The 6 Plaintiff contends that disclosure of trade secrets, technical and/or 7 proprietary information, including design specifications, and counterfeit 8 identification criteria, will result in significant and irreparable harm such 9 as a loss of ability to enforce intellectual property rights and irreparable 10 harm to good and brand reputation as a result thereof. Such confidential 11 and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 12 business or financial information, information regarding product 13 development and manufacturing, counterfeit identification guides, or 14 other commercial information (including information implicating privacy 15 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the 16 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure 17 under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 18 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 20 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 21 22 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary 23 uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 24 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 25 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 26 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 27 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without 1 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 2 record of this case. 3 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 4 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 6 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 7 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 8 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 10 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 11 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under 12 seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 13 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 14 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 15 187 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 17 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 18 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a 19 party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 20 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 21 22 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 23 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, 24 or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 25 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 26 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must 27 be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the 1 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, 2 document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 3 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 4 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 5 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 6 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided 7 by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 9 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 10 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 11 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 12 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 13 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 14 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 15

16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 18 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 20 designation of information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 22 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 23 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 24 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 25 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 26 well as their support staff). 27 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 1 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 2 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 4 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 5 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 6 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 7 responses to discovery in this matter. 8 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 9 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its 10 counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 11 2.8 Final Disposition: the later of (1) dismissal of all claims and 12 defenses in this Action, with or without prejudice; and (2) final judgment 13 herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, 14 remands, trials, or reviews of this Action, including the time limits for 15 filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to 16 applicable law. 17 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to 18 this Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record 19 or any other outside counsel. 20 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 21 22 association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Related

United States v. Ervin J. Robinson
14 F.3d 1200 (Seventh Circuit, 1994)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
GS Holistic, LLC v. One Stop Vape, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gs-holistic-llc-v-one-stop-vape-cacd-2025.