Kristina Chiteishvili v. Vertifx LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 27, 2022
Docket2:17-cv-08711
StatusUnknown

This text of Kristina Chiteishvili v. Vertifx LLC (Kristina Chiteishvili v. Vertifx 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
Kristina Chiteishvili v. Vertifx LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 471 Filed.12/27/22 Page1of16 Page ID #:5549

| || ALEXANDRA KRAKOVSKY 2 || (State Bar No. 225527) 3 4653 Carmel Mountain Road, Suite 308 #239 San Diego, CA 92130 * || Telephone: (858) 705-9333 5 || E-mail: alexandra.krakovsky@gmail.com Attorney for Interested Party Motion Global Network Inc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 Kristina Chiteishvili Case No. 2:17-cv-08711-JFW-RAO 13 V. □ STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 Vertifx LLC ORDER! 15 16 17 | 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Post-judgment discovery in this action involves production of confidential, 19 || proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to post- 24 || judgment discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 25 || extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 26 || treatment under the applicable legal principles. All of the document production 27 3g || | This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures.

Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 471 Filed 12/27/22 Page 2of16 Page ID #:5550

1 |] under this protective order is for attorneys’ eyes only, unless otherwise ordered by 2 || the Court. 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 Certain aspects of this post-judgment proceeding involve trade secrets, 6 || customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, 7 || financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from 8 || public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 9 || is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist 10 || of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 11 || regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 12 || development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 13 |} rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 14 || which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 15 || federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 16 || expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 17 || confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 18 || are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 19 || necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 20 || address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 21 || protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 22 || parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 23 || and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 24 || maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 25 || should not be part of the public record of this case. 26 || /// 27 || // 28 || ///

Case 2:1/-cv-08711-JFW-RAO Document 471 Filed 12/27/22 Page 3of16 Page ID #:5551

l C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 || Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 || under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 5 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 6 || to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 12 || Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 13 || require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 14 || reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 15 || respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 16 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 17 || without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 18 || material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 19 || otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 22 || relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 23 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 24 || each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 25 || under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 26 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 27 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 28 || the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration.

Case 2:1/f-cv-08711-JFW-RAO Document 471 Filed 12/27/22 Page 4of16 Page ID #:5552

I Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 3 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 4 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 5 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 6 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 8 || 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: 2:17-cv-08711-JFW-RAO, Kristina Chiteishvili v. Vertifx LLC 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 11 |} designation of information or items under this Order. 12 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 13 || how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 14 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 15 || the Good Cause Statement. 16 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 17 || their support staff).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Kristina Chiteishvili v. Vertifx LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kristina-chiteishvili-v-vertifx-llc-cacd-2022.