Mag US Lounge Management LLC v. Ontario International Airport Authority

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 6, 2023·No. 2:21-cv-04909·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 MAG US LOUNGE MANAGEMENT Case No. 2:21-cv-04909-CAS (RAOx) LLC, Plaintiff, ORDER1 13 v. Consolidated with 14 ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL 5:22-cv-01926-CAS(RAOx) 16 Defendant. 17 ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL 19 Plaintiff, 20 v. LLC, 22 Defendant. 23 24 25 26 27 1 1. A. 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 disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 8 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 13 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 15 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 17 confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential 18 business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 19 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), 20 information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 21 or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 22 decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to 23 facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, 24 to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 25 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 26 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 27 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 1 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 2 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 3 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 4 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 5 case. 6 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 9 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 10 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 11 material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 14 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 15 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 16 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 17 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 18 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 19 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 20 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 21 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 22 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 23 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 24 protectable—constitute good cause. 25 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 26 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 27 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 1 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 2 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 3 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 4 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 5 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 6 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 8 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 9 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 10 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall 11 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 12 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: The pending actions governed by this protective order is MAG 15 US Lounge Management, LLC fka CAVU Experiences Amer, LLC v. Ontario 16 International Airport Authority (Case No. 2:21-cv-04909-CAS (RAOx)), 17 consolidated with Ontario International Airport Authority v. MAG US Lounge 18 Management, LLC (Case No. 5:22-cv-01926-CAS (RAOx)) in the United States 19 District Court, Central District of California. 20 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 21 of information or items under this Order. 22 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 23 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 24 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 25 Cause Statement. 26 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 27 support staff). 1 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 2 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 3 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 5 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 6 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 7 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 8 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 9 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 10 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 11 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 12 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 13 counsel. 14 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 15 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Mag US Lounge Management LLC v. Ontario International Airport Authority, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Mag US Lounge Management LLC v. Ontario International Airport Authority (Mag US Lounge Management LLC v. Ontario International Airport Authority) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)