Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 1, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01777·Unknown

Opinion

William Moran II Bill@awlegalfirm.com ARTHUR WILLIAM, LLP 10015 Old Columbia Rd. Columbia, MD 21046 Tel: 520-604-0260 Attorneys for Plaintiff Michael Gruen UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION MICHAEL GRUEN, Case No. 2:24-cv-01777 Hon. André Birotte Jr. Plaintiff, Hon. Stephanie S. Christensen v. JOSHUA RICHARDS, an individual; CHRISTOPHER SAWTELLE, an individual; CROSSCHECK STUDIOS, LLC, a California Limited Liability Company; BUDDY’S HARD, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; CAA HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1.2 Good Cause Statement. The Parties acknowledge that Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint is not presently settled and is subject to a forthcoming motion to dismiss, which may define the scope of discovery in this case. The outcome of that motion may impact the degree to which discovery may potentially involve the sharing of confidential business or personnel information including but not limited to contract and negotiation documents between CrossCheck Studios and Amazon Studios (now Amazon MGM Studios). There may be a possibility that this disclosure would reveal certain pending or upcoming projects risking potential financial loss. Further, the rates paid, deliverables and intellectual property required, and other material terms may compromise one or more parties’ negotiations of current or future contracts. Discovery in this matter may also reveal certain sensitive information such as but not limited to contract rates, personal financial records, business practices and activities, and private matters the disclosure of which to the general public could lead to lost financial opportunities, oppression, harassment, or ridicule unnecessary to the resolution of the dispute at hand. This action may involve customer and pricing lists and other valuable commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Nothing in the foregoing should be deemed to be an admission or concession by any party that particular information is appropriately discoverable. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disc

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

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

Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards (Michael Gruen v. Joshua Richards) — 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)
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)