Merkamerica Inc. v. Dell Marketing LP

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 10, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-05408·Unknown

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MERKAMERICA INC., a California corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-05408-ODW 12 (RAOx) Plaintiff,

v. DELL MARKETING LP, a Texas 15 limited partnership, also known as ORDER1 DELL OUTLET; and DOES 1 through 16 100, inclusive,

17 Defendants.

18 DELL MARKETING LP, a Texas limited partnership, 19 Counterclaimant, 20 vs. 21 MERKAMERICA INC., a California corporation, 22 Counterdefendant. 23 24 25 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 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 13 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 14 other valuable commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for 15 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 16 than prosecution or defense of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 17 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 18 business or financial information, customer lists, pricing, information regarding 19 confidential business practices, or other confidential commercial information 20 (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information 21 otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 22 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case 23 decisions, or common law. 24 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 25 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 26 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 27 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 1 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 2 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 3 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 4 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 5 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 6 7 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order, alone, does not entitle them to file confidential 10 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 11 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 12 the court 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 and 16 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 17 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 18 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 19 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 20 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 21 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 22 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 23 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 24 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 25 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 27 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 1 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 2 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 3 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 4 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 5 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 6 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 8 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 9 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 10 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 11 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 12 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13 If a Receiving Party seeks to file in court any information that a Producing 14 Party has designated as Protected Material, the Producing Party bears the burden to 15 establish the good cause or compelling reasons, as applicable, for filing such 16 Protected Material under seal. A Receiving Party shall apply to file such Protected 17 Material under seal by submitting a declaration indicating that the filing includes 18 information that the Producing Party has designated as Protected Material under this 19 Order. In such event, the Producing Party must make the required showing for 20 filing under seal in a timely response to the application in order for the burden to be 21 satisfied. 22 23 2. DEFINITIONS 24 2.1 Action: this pending lawsuit, MerkAmerica Inc., a California 25 corporation v. Dell Marketing LP, a Texas limited partnership, also known as Dell 26 Outlet, et al., No. 20SMCV00664 (C.D. Cal.). 27 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 1 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ 2 EYES ONLY” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, 3 stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal 4 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 5 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 6 their support staff). 7 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 8 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as Protected 9 Material. 10 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 11 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 12 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 13 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 14 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 15 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 16 an 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

Merkamerica Inc. v. Dell Marketing LP, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Merkamerica Inc. v. Dell Marketing LP (Merkamerica Inc. v. Dell Marketing LP) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)