Kellytoy Worldwide, Inc. v. Hugfun, International, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 7, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-07652·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA KELLYTOY WORLDWIDE, INC., a Case No. 2:19-cv-07652-MWF (MAAx) California corporation, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. HUGFUN, INTERNATIONAL, INC. a/k/a Hugfun Int’l Inc., a Hong Kong entity of unknown form, BJ’S WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., a Massachusetts corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant(s). 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Good cause exists for the entry of this pretrial protective order because this case relates to alleged intellectual property infringement in the market for plush toys, and the parties are all involved in the manufacture or sale of plush toys. This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Further, good cause exists for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only protective order that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential” since this case involves allegations of intellectual property infringement that may require production of highly confidential product design, financial, customer, and supplier information. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 556 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (“Many cases involving claims of trademark infringement require the production of customer and supplier lists and such lists are customarily produced subject to an ‘attorney’s eyes only’ order.”) 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1. Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 3.2. Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the designation of information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 3.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 3.5. Designating Party: A Party or Nonparty that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 3.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that is produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 3.7. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 3.8. In-House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 3.9. Nonparty: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3.10. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3.11. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, In-House Counsel, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 3.12. Producing Party: A Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 3.13. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 3.14. Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 3.15. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3.16 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or Nonparty would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 4. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulated Protective Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order do not cover any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure

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

Kellytoy Worldwide, Inc. v. Hugfun, International, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Kellytoy Worldwide, Inc. v. Hugfun, International, Inc. (Kellytoy Worldwide, Inc. v. Hugfun, International, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)