Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 13, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-01935
StatusUnknown

This text of Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc. (Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 Anthony J. Anscombe (Bar No. 135883) aanscombe@steptoe.com 2 Cody A. DeCamp (Bar No. 311327) cdecamp@steptoe.com 3 STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP 4 1 Market Street, Spear Tower, Suite 3900 San Francisco, California 94105 5 Telephone: (415) 365-6700 Facsimile: (415) 365-6699 6

7 Attorneys for Defendant

8 [Additional Attorneys Listed on Signature Page] 9 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 12 Howard Hoffman, No. 2:19-cv-1935-JAM-DB

13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 v. 15 Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc., 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Howard Hoffman 20 and Defendant Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc. (“Jelly Belly”), through their undersigned 21 counsel, respectfully submit this Stipulated Protective Order to govern the handling of 22 information and materials produced in the course of discovery or filed with the Court in advance 23 of trial in this action. 24 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT PURSUANT TO L.R. 141.1(c) 25 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 26 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 27 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 28 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 1 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 2 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery, and that the protection it affords from 3 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 4 confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. It is the intent of the parties and the 5 Court that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons in this case, and 6 that nothing will be so designated without a good faith belief that there is good cause as to why 7 information should not be part of the public record. 8 Statement Under L.R. 141.1(c)(1): Examples of confidential information that the parties 9 may seek to protect from unrestricted or unprotected disclosure include: 10 a) Information related to customers that were sent text messages by Jelly Belly, 11 including, personal identifying information, contact information, and place of 12 residence, or other information tending to reveal their identities; 13 b) Jelly Belly’s trade secret information; 14 c) Information that is the subject of a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement or 15 obligation; 16 d) The names of a party’s vendors, distributors, or customers (or other information 17 tending to reveal their identities); 18 e) Agreements with third-parties; 19 f) Information related to budgets, sales, profits, costs, margins, product pricing, or 20 other internal financial/accounting information, including non-public information 21 related to financial condition or performance and income or other non-public tax 22 information; 23 g) Information related to internal operations, including personnel information; 24 h) Information related to past, current, and future market analyses and business and 25 marketing development, including plans, strategies, forecasts and competition. 26 Statement Under L.R. 141.1(c)(2): Generally speaking, information and documents 27 shall only be designated under this protective order because the Designating Party believes the 28 information or documents are proprietary, confidential, and/or trade secret information that the 1 Designating Party would not release publicly. Unrestricted or unprotected disclosure of such 2 confidential, technical, commercial, or personal information would result in prejudice or harm to 3 the Producing Party by revealing the Producing Party’s competitive confidential information. 4 Such information will have been developed at the expense of the Producing Party and represent 5 valuable tangible and intangible assets of that party. Additionally, privacy interests must be 6 safeguarded. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that there is good cause for the entry of 7 this Protective Order. 8 Statement Under L.R. 141.1(c)(3): The parties submit that protecting the confidential 9 nature of information in this way will be most efficient for the parties and the Court. The liability 10 issues in this case turn on text messages that were sent to Jelly Belly’s customers. Although 11 discovery has only just commenced, the discovery served so far seeks the personal identifying 12 information of all individuals who were sent a text by Jelly Belly. The parties are likely to move 13 and/or cross-move for summary judgment on the TCPA claims based on information the parties 14 provide to each other during discovery in this case. Additionally, the parties may need to reveal 15 information that they believe to be confidential, including information constituting or relating to 16 the Defendant’s asserted trade secrets or other confidential business information in further motion 17 practice relating to the pleadings, and/or in motion practice concerning the sufficiency of the 18 parties’ respective discovery responses. Thus, a private agreement between the parties to 19 safeguard this information would not be sufficient because it would need to be replicated in 20 orders of this Court at the time of any such filings. 21 Accordingly, in order to expedite the flow of discovery materials, facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, adequately protect information 23 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, ensure that only materials the parties are entitled to 24 keep confidential are subject to such treatment, and ensure that the parties are permitted 25 reasonably necessary uses of such materials in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, pursuant 26 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), it is hereby ORDERED: 27 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 28 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 1 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 2 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than those specifically set forth in this Order may 3 be warranted. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 4 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 5 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 6 under the applicable legal principles. 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 9 information or items under this Order. 10 2.2. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information that qualifies for protection 11 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including information that a Producing Party, 12 including any Party to this action and any Non-Party producing information or material 13 voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena or a court order, considers in good faith to constitute or 14 contain confidential technical, sales, marketing, financial, or other commercially sensitive 15 information, whether embodied in physical objects, documents, or the factual knowledge of 16 persons, and which has been so designated by the Producing Party. 17 2.3. Counsel: Designated House Counsel, Designated Outside Counsel, and Outside 18 Counsel of Record (as well as the support staff of said Outside Counsel of Record). 19 2.4.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Hoffman v. Jelly Belly Candy Company, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-jelly-belly-candy-company-inc-caed-2020.