Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 21, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-06148
StatusUnknown

This text of Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz LLC (Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz 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
Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-06148-GW-AFM Document 139 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:3925

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 LOS ANGELES DIVISION 12 13 LASHIFY, INC., Case No.: 2:22-cv-06148-GW-AFMx

14 Plaintiff, [Proposed] Protective Order1

15 v.

16 URBAN DOLLZ LLC d/b/a URBAN DOLL; SIMA MOSBACHER; and 17 CHRISTOPHER SIMONIAN D/B/A DOLL HOUSE LLC, 18 Defendants. 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the parties hereby petition the Court to enter the following Protective 24 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections 25 on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 26 27 1 This Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided 28 under Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon’s Procedures. PROTECTIVE ORDER CASE NO. 2:22-CV-06148-GW-AFM Case 2:22-cv-06148-GW-AFM Document 139 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #:3926

1 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 2 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 5 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 6 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 7 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 8 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 9 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 10 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 11 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 12 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 13 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 14 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 15 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 16 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 17 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 18 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 19 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 20 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 21 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 22 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 23 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 24 case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 26 SEAL 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3, below, that this 28 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 CASE NO. 2:22-CV-06148-GW-AFM Case 2:22-cv-06148-GW-AFM Document 139 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:3927

1 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 2 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 3 material under seal. 4 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 5 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 6 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 7 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 8 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 9 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 10 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 11 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 12 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 13 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 14 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the 15 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 16 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 17 protectable—constitute good cause. 18 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 19 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 20 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 21 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 22 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 23 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 24 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 25 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 26 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 27 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 28 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 CASE NO. 2:22-CV-06148-GW-AFM Case 2:22-cv-06148-GW-AFM Document 139 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:3928

1 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 2 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 3 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 4 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 5 2. DEFINITIONS 6 2.1 Action: Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz LLC d/b/a Urban Doll, et al., Case 7 No. 2:22-cv-06148-GW-AFM (C.D. Cal.). 8 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 9 of information or items under this Order. 10 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 11 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 12 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 13 Cause Statement. 14 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 15 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 17 ONLY.” 18 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 19 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 20 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 21 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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)
Lashify, Inc. v. Urban Dollz LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lashify-inc-v-urban-dollz-llc-cacd-2023.