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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 7, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-07652
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 KELLYTOY WORLDWIDE, INC., a Case No. 2:19-cv-07652-MWF (MAAx) 12 California corporation, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 14 v. 15 HUGFUN, INTERNATIONAL, INC. 16 a/k/a Hugfun Int’l Inc., a Hong Kong entity of unknown form, BJ’S 17 WHOLESALE CLUB, INC., a 18 Massachusetts corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 19 20 Defendant(s). 21 22 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 25 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 26 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 27 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 28 1 Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 2 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 3 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 4 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 5 set forth in Section 13.3 below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 6 them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 7 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 8 party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. Discovery in this 9 action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private 10 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 11 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 12 13 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 Good cause exists for the entry of this pretrial protective order because this 15 case relates to alleged intellectual property infringement in the market for plush 16 toys, and the parties are all involved in the manufacture or sale of plush toys. This 17 action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 18 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 19 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 20 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential 21 and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 22 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 23 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 24 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 25 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 26 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 27 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 28 1 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 2 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 3 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 4 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 5 handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective 6 order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties 7 that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 8 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 9 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 10 of the public record of this case. 11 Further, good cause exists for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only protective 12 order that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential” since this case 13 involves allegations of intellectual property infringement that may require 14 production of highly confidential product design, financial, customer, and supplier 15 information. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 556 (C.D. Cal. 16 2007) (“Many cases involving claims of trademark infringement require the 17 production of customer and supplier lists and such lists are customarily produced 18 subject to an ‘attorney’s eyes only’ order.”) 19 20 3. DEFINITIONS 21 3.1. Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 22 3.2. Challenging Party: A Party or Nonparty that challenges the 23 designation of information or items under this Stipulated Protective 24 Order. 25 3.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 26 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 27 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and 28 as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 1 3.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well 2 as their support staff). 3 3.5. Designating Party: A Party or Nonparty that designates information or 4 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 5 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 6 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 7 3.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 8 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 9 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 10 tangible things), that is produced or generated in disclosures or 11 responses to discovery in this matter. 12 3.7. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 13 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its 14 counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 15 3.8. In-House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 16 Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of 17 Record or any other outside counsel. 18 3.9. Nonparty: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 19 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 20 3.10. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 21 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to 22 this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or 23 are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that 24 party, and includes support staff. 25 3.11. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 26 employees, consultants, retained experts, In-House Counsel, and 27 Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 28 1 3.12. Producing Party: A Party or Nonparty that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 3.13. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation 4 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, 5 preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or 6 retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 7 subcontractors. 8 3.14. Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 9 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 10 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 11 3.15. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 12 Material from a Producing Party. 13 3.16 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 14 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL 15 Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or 16 Nonparty would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not 17 be avoided by less restrictive means. 18 19 4.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kellytoy Worldwide, Inc. v. Hugfun, International, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kellytoy-worldwide-inc-v-hugfun-international-inc-cacd-2020.