Matthew D. Van Steenwyk v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 8, 2020
Docket2:20-cv-02375
StatusUnknown

This text of Matthew D. Van Steenwyk v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk (Matthew D. Van Steenwyk v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk) 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
Matthew D. Van Steenwyk v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 MATTHEW D. VAN STEENWYK, Case No.: 2:20-cv-02375-FMO (AFMx) Individually, as Trustee and Beneficiary 12 of The Matthew Van Steenwyk Gst Trust STIPULATED PROTECTIVE And The Matthew Van Steenwyk Issue ORDER1 13 Trust, And As Co-Trustee Of The Gretchen Marie Van Steenwyk-Marsh Gst 14 Trust And The Gretchen Marie Van Steenwyk-Marsh Issue Trust and 15 derivatively on behalf of Defendants APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES 16 ASSOCIATES, INC., and ATA 17 RANCHES, INC., 18 Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 KEDRIN E. VAN STEENWYK, Individually, as Successor Trustee of the 21 Donald H. Van Steenwyk and Elizabeth A. Van Steenwyk 1996 Revocable Trust; 22 PAMELA PIERCE, Individually; PHILIP GOBE, Individually; PHILIP 23 LONGORIO, Individually; GENE DUROCHER, Individually; DANIEL 24 CARTER, Individually; JOSEPH MCCOY, Individually; ELIZABETH A. 25 VAN STEENWYK, Individually, and as Original Trustee and as Beneficiary of the 26 Donald H. Van Steenwyk and Elizabeth A. Van Steenwyk 1996 Revocable Trust; 27

28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon’s Procedures. ADELAIDA CELLARS, INC., a 1 California Corporation; and DOES 1-10, Inclusive, 2 Defendants, 3 and 4 5 APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES ASSOCIATES, INC., a California 6 corporation; and ATA RANCHES, INC., a Delaware corporation, 7 Nominal Defendants. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve private medical information, customer and 13 pricing information and other valuable research, development, commercial, 14 financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection 15 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 16 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 17 consist of, among other things, private medical records, confidential business or 18 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or 19 other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 20 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 21 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 22 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 23 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 24 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 25 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 26 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 27 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of 28 the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 1 is 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 5 this case. 6 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 7 SEAL 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 10 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 11 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 12 to file material under seal. 13 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 14 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 15 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 16 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 17 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 18 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 19 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 20 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 21 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 22 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 23 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 24 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 25 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 27 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 28 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 1 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 3 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 4 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 5 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 6 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 7 declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 9 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 10 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 11 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 12 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 13 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 16 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 17 designation of information or items under this Order. 18 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 19 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 20 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 21 the Good Cause Statement. 22 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 23 their support staff).

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)
Royston v. Horner
24 A. 25 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1892)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Matthew D. Van Steenwyk v. Kedrin E. Van Steenwyk, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matthew-d-van-steenwyk-v-kedrin-e-van-steenwyk-cacd-2020.