Laurence Cherniak v. John Doe 1

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedApril 12, 2023
Docket8:21-cv-01523
StatusUnknown

This text of Laurence Cherniak v. John Doe 1 (Laurence Cherniak v. John Doe 1) 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
Laurence Cherniak v. John Doe 1, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 LAURENCE CHERNIAK, ) Case No. 8:21-cv-01523-SPG-JDE 12 Plaintiff, ) ) 13 ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ) v. ) 14 ) ) 15 KARLA ORELLANA d/b/a ROKA ) DREAMS, et al., ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 Pursuant the parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 76) and for good cause shown, the 19 Court finds and orders as follows. 20 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 24 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 28 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 Good cause exists for the entry of this pretrial protective order to the extent 5 that certain documents sought by the Parties in discovery may include 6 commercially sensitive documents or information, trade secrets, and/or other 7 proprietary information that a respective Party has maintained as confidential and 8 for which the designating Party has a good faith basis to claim that special 9 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 10 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 11 and information may consist of, among other things, confidential business or 12 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or 13 other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 14 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 15 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 16 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 17 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 18 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 19 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 20 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 21 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of 22 23 the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 24 is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 25 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 26 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 27 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 28 this case. 1 Further, good cause exists for a two-tiered, attorney-eyes-only protective 2 order that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential” since this case 3 involves allegations of copyright infringement that may require production of 4 highly confidential and closely guarded financial, customer, and supplier 5 information. Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 556 (C.D. Cal. 6 2007). 7 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 10 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 11 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 12 to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 13 of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 14 dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 15 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 16 Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 17 Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 18 stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 19 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 20 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 21 file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 22 23 as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 24 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 25 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 28 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 3 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 4 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 5 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 6 under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 8 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 9 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 10 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 11 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 12 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 4. DEFINITIONS 14 4.1 Action: The action captioned above. 15 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items under this Order. 17 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 18 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 20 the Good Cause Statement. 21 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 22 23 their support staff). 24 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 25 items that it produces in disclosures or discovery responses as “CONFIDENTIAL” 26 or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 27 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 28 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 1 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 2 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 3 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 4 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 5 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Laurence Cherniak v. John Doe 1, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laurence-cherniak-v-john-doe-1-cacd-2023.