Hill Phoenix, Inc. v. Classic Refrigeration SoCal, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 21, 2019·No. 8:19-cv-00695·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 HILL PHOENIX INC., a Delaware Case No. 8:19-cv-00695-DOC (JDEx) 11 corporation, PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 Plaintiff,

13 v. [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early] INC., a California corporation; THOMAS 15 DAVID LOWE, an individual; DAVID ROGERS, an individual; and TRAVIS 16 VANDERLOON, an individual, 17 Defendants. 18

19 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 24 warranted. Accordingly, the following Protective Order is necessary to safeguard 25 against public disclosure of the confidential and proprietary information at issue in 26 this dispute. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 27 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 28 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 1 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 2 principles. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 4 This is an action for trade secret misappropriation and for breach of certain 5 confidentiality agreements. Plaintiff alleges that this action is likely to involve the 6 production, exchange, and examination of confidential information (including 7 information that Plaintiff alleges is trade secret) or other confidential research, 8 development, or commercial information (including information implicating 9 privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the 10 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 11 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. The disclosure 12 of this information, according to Plaintiff, has the potential to cause competitive 13 harm to Plaintiff. Accordingly, special protection of this information from public 14 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 15 warranted. 16 By way of example, Plaintiff alleges that its trade secret and confidential 17 information includes customer and pricing lists, wage and hour margin 18 19 information, job costing templates, and past confidential bids made by Plaintiff to 20 its customers or potential customers, all of which Plaintiff has accused Defendants 21 of misappropriating—an allegation that Defendants deny. Plaintiff further alleges 22 that the information will include internal business information concerning the 23 individual and corporate Defendants, including bids they have made to customers, 24 corporate financial information, and individual wage and salary details. 25 Defendants, again, dispute that any information in this case is highly confidential 26 or constitutes trade secret information. 27 Nevertheless, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 28 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 1 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 2 parties are permitted reasonable and necessary uses of such material in preparation 3 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, 4 and to serve the ends of justice, this Protective Order should be entered as an order 5 of the Court. 6 The parties shall not designate information as confidential for tactical 7 reasons. The parties may designate information as confidential only when there is 8 a good faith belief that the information has been maintained in a confidential, non- 9 public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 10 record of this case. 11 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 12 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 13 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 14 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 15 standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the court to file 16 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of 17 access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 18 19 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 20 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 21 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 22 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 23 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 24 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 25 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a Party seeks to 26 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 27 as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 28 1 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 2 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 3 Further, if a Party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 4 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 5 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 6 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 7 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 8 or introduced under seal, the Party seeking protection must articulate compelling 9 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 10 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 11 under seal must be provided by declaration. 12 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 13 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 14 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 15 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 16 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 17 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 18 19 4. DEFINITIONS 20 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 21 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 22 designation of information or items under this Order. 23 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 24 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 25 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 26 the Good Cause Statement. 27 4.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 28 Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or 1 maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 2 Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and the 3 disclosure of which would put the Producing Party at a competitive disadvantage. 4 4.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 5 their support staff).

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

Hill Phoenix, Inc. v. Classic Refrigeration SoCal, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Hill Phoenix, Inc. v. Classic Refrigeration SoCal, Inc. (Hill Phoenix, Inc. v. Classic Refrigeration SoCal, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)