IZMO, Inc. v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 23, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-10693
StatusUnknown

This text of IZMO, Inc. v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC (IZMO, Inc. v. Sixt Rent A Car, 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
IZMO, Inc. v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP DANIEL C. DECARLO, SB# 160307 2 E-Mail: Dan.DeCarlo@lewisbrisbois.com ESTHER Y. SHIN, SB# 324049 3 E-Mail: Esther.Shin@lewisbrisbois.com 633 West 5th Street, Suite 4000 4 Los Angeles, California 90071 Telephone: 213-250-1800 5 Facsimile: 213-250-7900

6 Attorneys for Defendant Sixt Rent A Car, LLC

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 IZMO, INC., Case No. 2:20-CV-10693-DDP-AFM 12 Plaintiff, Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon 13 v. 14 SIXT RENT A CAR, LLC, AMENDED STIPULATED 15 PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendant. 16 Trial Date: None Set 17

18 Plaintiff Izmo, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant Sixt Rent a Car, LLC (“Defendant’) 19 (collectively, the “Parties,” and individually, a “Party”), by and through their undersigned counsel 20 of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 21 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 22 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 23 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 24 other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate 25 to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 26 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 28 1 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 2 principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action may involve sensitive business information and other valuable commercial, 5 financial, private, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 6 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 7 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable 8 research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which 9 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of 10 this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 11 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 12 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 13 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 14 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 15 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 16 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 17 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled 18 to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 19 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 20 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 21 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 22 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 23 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 24 of the public record of this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 27 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 28 1 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 2 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 4 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown 5 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 6 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1207, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar- 7 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 8 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling rasons 9 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 10 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure of 11 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 12 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 13 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 15 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly 16 tailored to serve the specific interests to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 17 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought 18 to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 19 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, 20 for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 21 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 23 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 24 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 25 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 26 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 27 feasible. 28 2. DEFINITIONS 1 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit, Case No. 2:20-CV-10693-DDP-AFM. 2 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information 3 or items under this Order. 4 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 5 ONLY” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) 6 or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 7 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 8 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record (and their attorneys and staff) and House Counsel 9 (as well as their support staff). 10 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 11 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 12 CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. 13 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or 14 manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 15 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 16 discovery in this matter.

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)
United States v. Porat
17 F.3d 660 (Third Circuit, 1994)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
IZMO, Inc. v. Sixt Rent A Car, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/izmo-inc-v-sixt-rent-a-car-llc-cacd-2021.