Lanard Toys Limited v. Anker Play Products, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 10, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-04350
StatusUnknown

This text of Lanard Toys Limited v. Anker Play Products, LLC (Lanard Toys Limited v. Anker Play Products, 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
Lanard Toys Limited v. Anker Play Products, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LANARD TOYS LIMITED, CASE NO. 2:19-CV-04350 RSWL-AFM 12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 vs. District Judge: Ronald S.W. Lew 14 ANKER PLAY PRODUCTS, LLC, Courtroom TBD 15 Defendant. Magistrate Judge: Alexander F. MacKinnon 16 Courtroom 780 17 18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 20 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 21 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 22 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 23 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (the “Order”). The parties 24 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 25 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 26 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 27 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 28 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 3 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 4 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 5 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 6 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 7 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 8 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 9 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 10 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 11 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 12 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 13 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 14 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 15 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 16 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 17 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 18 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 19 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 20 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 21 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 22 part of the public record of this case. 23 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 24 UNDER SEAL 25 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 26 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 27 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 28 1 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 2 to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See, Kamakana v. City 6 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 7 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 8 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 9 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 10 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 11 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 12 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 13 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 14 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 15 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 17 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 18 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 19 protected. See, Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 20 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 21 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 22 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 23 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 24 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 25 declaration. 26 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 27 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 28 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 1 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 2 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 3 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 6 2.2 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 7 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 8 support staffs). 9 2.3 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 10 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 11 2.4 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 12 Discovery Material in this Action. 13 2.5 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 14 from a Producing Party. 15 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES 18 ONLY.” 19 2.7 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 20 of information or items under this Order. 21 2.8 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as 22 their support staff). 23 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 24 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 25 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 26 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 27 28 1 2.10 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 2 Action. In-House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 3 other outside counsel. 4 2.11 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 5 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 6 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 7 2.12 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 8 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 9 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 10 and their employees and subcontractors.

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)
Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Lanard Toys Limited v. Anker Play Products, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lanard-toys-limited-v-anker-play-products-llc-cacd-2020.