McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 18, 2023
Docket5:22-cv-01666
StatusUnknown

This text of McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corporation (McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corporation) 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
McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK Document 37 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:411

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 12 SARAH MCCRACKEN, individually and CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK on behalf of all others similarly situated, 13

14 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 v. 16 KSF ACQUISITION CORPORATION, Date Filed: September 21, 2022 17 Defendant. Trial Date: None 18

19 20

22 23 24 25 26 27 28

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ACTIVE 684390164v1 Case 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK Document 37 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 15 Page ID #:412

1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 4 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 5 any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 6 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 7 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 8 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 9 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 10 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further 11 acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does 12 not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth 13 the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 14 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 17 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 18 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 19 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 20 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business 21 or financial information, confidential consumer information, information regarding 22 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 23 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 24 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 25 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 26 common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 27 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 28 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 1 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ACTIVE 684390164v1 Case 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK Document 37 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:413

1 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct 2 of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, 3 a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 4 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 5 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 6 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 7 public record of this case. 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: The above-entitled action, Sarah McCracken v. KSF Acquisition 10 Corporation, Case No. 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK (C.D. Cal. Compl. filed Sept. 21, 2022). 11 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 12 information or items under this Order. 13 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 14 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 15 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 16 The term includes information and documents that are in good faith designated as 17 confidential by the person or party producing the information or documents. The term 18 includes documents, materials, items, and/or information involving negotiations or 19 agreements and drafts surrounding agreements that the parties thereto intended to be kept 20 confidential and not disclosed. The term also includes other types of documents, materials, 21 items, and/or information containing trade secrets as defined by California Civil Code § 22 3426.1, proprietary processes and competitively sensitive information, including financial 23 information (such as Social Security numbers and financial information), health 24 information and information which, if disclosed, would violate privacy laws. To the extent 25 that additional categories of documents, information, items, or materials that qualify for 26 such a designation under the standards developed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 27 26(c) are requested, parties shall propose an amendment identifying the additional 28 documents, information, items, or materials subject to this Protective Order. 2 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ACTIVE 684390164v1 Case 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK Document 37 Filed 01/18/23 Page 4 of 15 Page ID #:414

1 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 2 support staff). 3 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 4 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 5 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 6 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 7 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 8 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 9 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 10 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 11 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 12 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 13 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 14 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other 15 legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 16 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 17 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared 18 in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on 19 behalf of that party, including support staff. 20 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 21 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support 22 staffs). 23 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 24 Material in this Action. 25 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 26 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 27 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 28 their employees and subcontractors. 3 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ACTIVE 684390164v1 Case 5:22-cv-01666-SB-SHK Document 37 Filed 01/18/23 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:415

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
McCracken v. KSF Acquisition Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccracken-v-ksf-acquisition-corporation-cacd-2023.