Marty Linebarger v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 23, 2020
Docket8:20-cv-00309
StatusUnknown

This text of Marty Linebarger v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC (Marty Linebarger v. Graphic Packaging International, 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
Marty Linebarger v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 | MATTHEW MARKANSON, Case No.: 2:20-cv-00309-JFW-AFM Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon Presiding 12 Plaintiff, 13 y [PROPOSED] ORDER ON 14 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 || JASON BLAKE ROTRAMEL, et al. 16 4 Defendants. ISCOVERY MATTER

18 19 50 Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the parties to this lawsuit, through undersigned 5 counsel, jointly submit this Stipulated Protective Order to govern the handling of

9 information and materials produced in the course of discovery or filed with the Court in

33 this action:

1. A. PURPOSES OF LIMITATIONS

35 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

37 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the

3 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

1 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 2 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 3 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 4 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 6 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 7 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 8 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 9 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 10 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, 11 or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 12 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 13 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 14 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 15 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 16 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 17 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 18 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 19 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 20 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 21 parties that information will not be Protected as confidential for tactical reasons and that 22 nothing be so Protected without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 23 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 24 public record of this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 28 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 1 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 2 material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 8 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 9 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 10 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 11 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 12 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 13 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 14 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 15 constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 18 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 19 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 20 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 21 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 22 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 23 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 24 documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 26 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 28 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 1 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include 2 an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit,Matthew Markanson v. Jason Rotramel 5 et al.; Case No. 2:20-cv-00309-JFW-AFM 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 7 information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 9 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 10 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 11 Statement. 12 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: 13 extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items, the disclosure of which to 14 another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not 15 be avoided by less restrictive means. 16 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 17 support staff). 18 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 19 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 20 “CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 21 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 22 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 23 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 24 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 26 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 27 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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Marty Linebarger v. Graphic Packaging International, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marty-linebarger-v-graphic-packaging-international-llc-cacd-2020.