Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMay 1, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01777
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards (Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards) 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
Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 William Moran II 2 Bill@awlegalfirm.com ARTHUR WILLIAM, LLP 3 10015 Old Columbia Rd. 4 Columbia, MD 21046 Tel: 520-604-0260 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Gruen 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 8 9 MICHAEL GRUEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01777 10 Hon. André Birotte Jr. Plaintiff, 11 Hon. Stephanie S. Christensen v. 12 13 JOSHUA RICHARDS, an individual; CHRISTOPHER SAWTELLE, an 14 individual; CROSSCHECK STUDIOS, 15 LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BUDDY’S HARD, LLC, a 16 Delaware Limited Liability Company; 17 CREATIVE ARTISTS AGENCY, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability 18 Company; CAA HOLDINGS, LLC, a 19 Delaware Limited Liability Company, 20 Defendants. 21 22 1. INTRODUCTION 23 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 24 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 25 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 26 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 27 1 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 2 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 3 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 4 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 5 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 6 legal principles. 7 1.2 Good Cause Statement. The Parties acknowledge that 8 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is not presently settled and is 9 subject to a forthcoming motion to dismiss, which may define the scope of 10 discovery in this case. The outcome of that motion may impact the degree 11 to which discovery may potentially involve the sharing of confidential 12 business or personnel information including but not limited to contract 13 and negotiation documents between CrossCheck Studios and Amazon 14 Studios (now Amazon MGM Studios). There may be a possibility that this 15 disclosure would reveal certain pending or upcoming projects risking 16 potential financial loss. Further, the rates paid, deliverables and 17 intellectual property required, and other material terms may compromise 18 one or more parties’ negotiations of current or future contracts. Discovery 19 in this matter may also reveal certain sensitive information such as but 20 not limited to contract rates, personal financial records, business practices 21 22 and activities, and private matters the disclosure of which to the general 23 public could lead to lost financial opportunities, oppression, harassment, 24 or ridicule unnecessary to the resolution of the dispute at hand. 25 This action may involve customer and pricing lists and other 26 valuable commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information 27 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 1 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among 2 other things, confidential business or financial information, information 3 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 4 development, or commercial information (including information 5 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 6 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 7 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 8 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 9 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 10 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 11 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 12 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 13 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 14 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 15 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 16 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 17 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 18 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 19 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Nothing 20 in the foregoing should be deemed to be an admission or concession by 21 22 any party that particular information is appropriately discoverable. 23 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 24 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 25 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 26 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 27 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 1 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 2 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 3 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 4 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 5 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 6 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 7 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 8 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 9 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 10 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 11 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 12 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 13 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 14 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 15 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 17 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 18 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 19 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 20 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 21 22 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 23 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 24 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 25 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 26 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 27 seal must be provided by declaration. 1 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 2 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 3 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 4 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 5 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 6 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 9 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 10 designation of information or items under this Order. 11 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 12 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 13 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 14 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 15 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 16 well as 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)
Boakai v. Gonzales
447 F.3d 1 (First Circuit, 2006)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-gruen-v-joshua-richards-cacd-2025.