Leyth Dauod v. Zuru LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 4, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-09737
StatusUnknown

This text of Leyth Dauod v. Zuru LLC (Leyth Dauod v. Zuru 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
Leyth Dauod v. Zuru LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Paul D. Stevens (Cal. Bar. No. 207107) pstevens@stevenslc.com 2 Lauren A. Bochurberg (Cal. Bar. No. 333629) lbochurberg@stevenslc.com 3 STEVENS, LC 4 1855 Industrial Street, Suite 518 Los Angeles, California 90021 5 Tel: (213) 270-1211 Fax: (213) 270-1223 6 Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Sub-Classes 7 Additional Counsel info below: 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 13 LEYTH DAUOD, individually, and ) Case No. 2-24-cv-09737 ) on behalf of all others similarly ) 14 situated, ) STIPULATION AND PROPOSED 15 ) ) PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, ) 16 ) ) 17 v. ) ) 18 ) ZURU, LLC a California limited ) 19 liability corporation; and DOES 1 ) 20 through 10, inclusive,

21 Defendant. 22

28 1 Erik Swanholt, Bar No. 198042 Foley & Lardner LLP 2 555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418 3 Telephone: 213.972.4614 4 Facsimile: 213.486.0065 Email: eswanholt@foley.com 5 Micah Chavin, Bar No. 313634 6 Foley & Lardner LLP 7 555 California St, Suite 1700 San Francisco, CA 94104 8 Telephone: 415.434.4484 Facsimile: 415.434.4507 9 Email: micah.chavin@foley.com 10 Attorneys for Defendant, ZURU, LLC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 6 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 9 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 10 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists 13 and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 14 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 15 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 16 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 17 consist of, among other things, product formula for manufacturing the product 18 at issue, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 19 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 20 21 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of 22 third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 23 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 24 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 25 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 26 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 27 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 28 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in 1 the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 2 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 3 this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated 4 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a 5 good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 6 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record 7 of this case. 8 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 9 PROCEDURE 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 11 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 12 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 13 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 14 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 15 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 16 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause 17 must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 18 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 19 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 20 21 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 22 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 23 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 24 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party 25 seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 26 Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- 27 ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” does not— without the submission of 28 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be 1 filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 2 constitute good cause. 3 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 4 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 5 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to 6 be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th 7 Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to 8 be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 9 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 10 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 11 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 12 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 13 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 14 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for 15 public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise 16 protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks 17 to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 18 why redaction is not feasible. 19 4. DEFINITIONS 20 21 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 22 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 23 designation of information or items under this Order. 24 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 25 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 26 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 27 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. Such information may consist 28 of, without limitation, (1) testimony given in this Action by any Party (as 1 defined below) or by any third party (whether oral, in writing, or via 2 videotape); (2) documents produced in this action by any party or by 3 any third party; (3) written discovery responses given by any Party; (4) any 4 documents or pleadings filed with the Court which attach, contain or disclose 5 any such “CONFIDENTIAL” Information; and (5) the information contained 6 within such documents, testimony or discovery responses so properly 7 designated.

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)
Leyth Dauod v. Zuru LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leyth-dauod-v-zuru-llc-cacd-2025.