L.D. v. EzyRoller, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 2, 2024
Docket8:23-cv-01715
StatusUnknown

This text of L.D. v. EzyRoller, LLC (L.D. v. EzyRoller, 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
L.D. v. EzyRoller, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 L. D., a minor, by and through her Case No.: 8:23-cv-01715-CJC-ADS guardian ad litem, JENNIFER 12 DIENHART, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 Plaintiff, District Judge: Hon. Cormac J. Carney v. Magistrate Judge: Hon. Autumn D. 14 Spaeth EZYROLLER LLC, a Limited Liability 15 Company; and DOES 1 through 50, Complaint Filed: May 12, 2023 inclusive, Removal: September 14, 2023 16 Defendant. 17

19 20 21 22 23 24 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the Parties, Plaintiff L.D., by 2 and through her guardian ad litem, JENNIFER DIENHART (“Plaintiff”) and Defendant 3 EZYROLLER, LLC (“Defendant”), (collectively, the “Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby enter into this Stipulated Protective Order with 4 respect to documents disclosed by Defendant, as follows: 5 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 6 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 7 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 8 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 9 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 10 to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that 11 this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 12 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 13 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 14 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set 15 forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 16 entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets 17 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 18 when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 19 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 20 A. The nature of this Action is based on Plaintiff’s alleged injuries related to 21 her alleged use of the EzyRoller Drifter Pro X. Plaintiff’s case arises in strict 22 liability for product design, manufacturing, and warning, as well as negligence, 23 negligent misrepresentation, and breach of express and implied warranties. As 24 1 such, Plaintiff anticipates seeking the discovery of Data or Discovery Material 2 directly involving Defendant EzyRoller LLC’s trade secrets, customer and pricing 3 lists, and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 4 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is

6 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist 7 of, among other things, confidential business, confidential financial information, 8 information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 9 research, development, or commercial information (including information 10 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 11 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 12 disclosure under state or federal statutes, applicable international law, court 13 rules, case decisions, or common law. Disclosure of sensitive, confidential, and 14 proprietary business and financial information in civil discovery should be done 15 only under properly fashioned protective orders as secret information essential to 16 the continued operation of a business or industry that may be afforded some

17 measure of protection against unnecessary disclosure. (Davis v. Leal (E.D. Cal. 18 1999) 43 F.Supp.2d 1102, 1110) 19 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, while adequately 20 protecting privileged and sensitive information the Parties are entitled to keep 21 confidential, and to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary 22 uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, and serve the 23 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 24 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential 1 for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief 2 that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is 3 good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 4 III. DEFINITIONS 5 A. Action: the above-entitled proceeding Case No. 8:23-cv-01715-CJC-ADS

6 and includes the proceedings from this case prior to its removal to federal COURT 7 (California State Superior Court County of Orange, Case No. 30-2023-01325281- 8 CU-PL-WJC). 9 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 10 of information or items under this Order. 11 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how 12 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 13 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 14 Cause Statement. 15 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 16 support staff).

17 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 18 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 19 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 F. Data or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the 21 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 22 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are 23 produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 24 1 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve 3 as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside

6 counsel. 7 I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 8 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 J. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a Party to 10 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 11 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 12 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 13 K. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 14 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and 15 their support staffs). 16 L. Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Data or Discovery

17 Material in this Action. 18 M. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support 19 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 20 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 21 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 22 N. Protected Material: Any Data or Discovery Material that is designated as 23 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 1 O. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 2 from a Producing Party. 3 P. Disclose: To reveal, divulge, give, or make available materials, or any part 4 thereof, or any information contained therein. 5 IV. SCOPE

6 A.

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

Related

Davis v. Leal
43 F. Supp. 2d 1102 (E.D. California, 1999)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
L.D. v. EzyRoller, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ld-v-ezyroller-llc-cacd-2024.