MAJCO LLC v. JACKSON TIRE SERVICE, a California corporation; PHILLIP BOVERO, an individual

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 9, 2025·No. 2:25-cv-01967·Unknown

Opinion

RYAN T. WAGGONER (BAR NO. 251694) ERIC C. PETTIS (BAR NO. 313492) NATHAN T. JAMIESON (BAR NO. 333304) ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Phone: (213) 622-5555 Fax: (213) 620-8816 E-Mail: rwaggoner@allenmatkins.com epettis@allenmatkins.com njamieson@allenmatkins.com Attorneys for Plaintiff

MAJCO LLC, a California limited liability Case No. 2:25-cv-1967-DC-JDP company, Judge Hon. Dena M. Coggins Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER JACKSON TIRE SERVICE, a California Complaint Filed: July 14, 2025 corporation; PHILLIP BOVERO, an FAC: October 14, 2025 individual; KURST BOVERO, an individual; SIERRA TIRE CO., a California limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10,

Defendants.

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 3. DEFINITIONS 3.1. Action: Majco LLC v. Jackson Tire Service, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01967- DC-JDP (E.D. Cal.) 3.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 3.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3.4. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 3.5. Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3.6. Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 3.7. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 3.8. House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 3.9. Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 3.10. Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3.11. Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 3.12. Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 3.13. Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 3.14. Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3.15. Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 4. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial judge and other applicable authorities. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 5. DURATION Once a case proceeds to trial, information that was designated as CONFIDENTIAL or maintained pursuant to this protective order used or introduced as an exhibit at trial becomes public and will be presumptively available to all members of the public, including the press, unless the Court has granted a motion to seal such material. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006) (distinguishing “good cause” showing for sealing documents produced in discovery from “compelling reasons” standard when merits-related documents are part of court record). Accordingly, the terms of this protective order do not extend to any Protected Material used as an exhibit at trial or hearing if the Court has either rejected or granted the request to seal such Protected Material. If the Court has granted the request to seal such Protected Material, the terms of the order sealing such material or the Local Rules govern the subsequent use and dissemination of such material. 6. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 6.1. Each Party’s Requirement of Due Care. All Parties acknowledge that discovery in this Action may involve documents and information that contain trade secrets of one or more of the Parties or other Protected Material. Each Producing Party agrees to undertake efforts to designate all documents and information that it will produce as Confidential to the extent such documents and information contain the trade secrets of other Parties. If any Party discovers information or documents containing its trade secrets were produced by the Producing Party that the Producing Party failed to designate, that other Party may re-produce such documents with “CONFIDENTIAL” as outlined below and, thereafter, all Parties shall treat such material as Prote

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

MAJCO LLC v. JACKSON TIRE SERVICE, a California corporation; PHILLIP BOVERO, an individual, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

MAJCO LLC v. JACKSON TIRE SERVICE, a California corporation; PHILLIP BOVERO, an individual (MAJCO LLC v. JACKSON TIRE SERVICE, a California corporation; PHILLIP BOVERO, an individual) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Friends of Hope Valley v. Frederick Co.
268 F.R.D. 643 (E.D. California, 2010)