Meridian Rapid Defense Group LLC v. Delta Scientific Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 29, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-07222
StatusUnknown

This text of Meridian Rapid Defense Group LLC v. Delta Scientific Corporation (Meridian Rapid Defense Group LLC v. Delta Scientific 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
Meridian Rapid Defense Group LLC v. Delta Scientific Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 MERIDIAN RAPID DEFENSE GROUP Case No.: 2:23-cv-07222 GW(PDx) 10 LLC, a California limited liability company, ORDER APPROVING 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED v. PROTECTIVE ORDER1 12 DELTA SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a 13 California corporation, 14 Defendant. DELTA SCIENTIFIC CORPORATION, a 15 California corporation, 16 Counter-Plaintiff, 17 v. 18 MERIDIAN RAPID DEFENSE GROUP LLC, a California limited liability company, 19 Counter-Defendant. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue’s Procedures. 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 2 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 3 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 4 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 5 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 6 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 7 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 8 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 9 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 10 11 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 12 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary 13 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 14 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 15 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 16 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, 17 or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 18 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 19 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 20 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 21 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of 22 disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 23 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 24 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, 25 to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 26 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 27 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 28 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in 1 a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 3 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 6 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 7 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 8 material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 11 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 12 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 13 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 14 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), 15 and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary 16 support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a 17 party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 18 Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—OUTSIDE 19 COUNSELS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the submission of competent evidence 20 by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 21 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 23 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 24 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 25 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 26 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 27 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 28 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 1 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 2 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 3 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 4 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 5 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. 6 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include 7 an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 10 2.1 Action: the above-captioned federal law suit. 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 14 it 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 16 Statement. 17 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well as their 18 support staff). 19 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” 21 or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSELS’ EYES ONLY.” 22 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 23 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 24 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 25 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 26 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 27 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 28 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 1 2.8 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSELS’ EYES ONLY 2 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” 3 disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 4 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 5 2.9 In-House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Meridian Rapid Defense Group LLC v. Delta Scientific Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meridian-rapid-defense-group-llc-v-delta-scientific-corporation-cacd-2024.