MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedNovember 15, 2022
Docket8:22-cv-01599
StatusUnknown

This text of MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.) 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
MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-01599-JVS-DFM Document 24 Filed 11/15/22 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:240

1 STEVE HANLE, SBN. 168876 MARC A. FENSTER, SBN. 181067 shanle@stradlinglaw.com mafenster@raklaw.com 2 SALIL BALI, State Bar No. 263001 REZA MIRZAIE, SBN. 246953 sbali@stradlinglaw.com rmirzaie@raklaw.com 3 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RUSS AUGUST & KABAT RAUTH 12424 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor 4 A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Los Angeles, CA 90025 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Tel: (310) 826-7474 5 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 Fax: (310) 826-6991 Tel: 949 725 4000 6 Fax: 949 725 4100 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Mr. Technologies, GMBH 7 Attorney for Defendant, 8 Western Digital Technologies, Inc. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SOUTHERN DIVISION 12 MR. TECHNOLOGIES, GMBH,, CASE NO.: CASE NO. 8:22-cv-01599- JVS-DFM 13 Plaintiff, [XPXRXOXPXOXSEXDX] STIPULATED 14 vs. PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 WESTERN DIGITAL Judge: District Judge James V. Selna TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick 16 Defendant. Complaint Filed: August 26, 2022 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH 4874-6429-0867v2/105234-0002 Case 8:22-cv-01599-JVS-DFM Document 24 Filed 11/15/22 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:241

1 1. PURPOSE AND CAUSE 2 1.1. Purposes And Limitations 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 6 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 7 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 8 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 9 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 10 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 11 under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 12 in Section 13.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them 13 to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 14 procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a 15 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 16 1.2. Good Cause Statement 17 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, confidential technical 18 information, financial revenue and profit information, marketing strategies, and 19 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 20 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 21 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 22 confidential and proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other 23 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 24 confidential business practices, source code, technical specifications, or other 25 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 26 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 27 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 28 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, STRADLING YOCCA -1- CARLSON & RAUTH [PROPOSED] ORDER LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH 4874-6429-0867v2/105234-0002 Case 8:22-cv-01599-JVS-DFM Document 24 Filed 11/15/22 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:242

1 or common law. The public disclosure of such information could competitively 2 harm the Parties. 3 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 4 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 5 protect information the Parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 6 Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 7 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 8 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 9 matter. It is the intent of the Parties that information will not be designated as 10 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 11 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 12 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 13 Additionally, based on the nature of the information that may be relevant, 14 there is a need for a two-tiered protective order that designates certain material 15 “CONFIDENTIAL” and other material as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 16 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. See Elements Spirits, Inc. v. Iconic Brands, Inc., 17 Civ. No. CV 15-02692 DDP(AGRx), 2016 WL 2642206, at *1–*2 (C.D. Cal. May 18 9, 2016) (holding that protective order with attorneys’ eyes only designation was 19 warranted to protect party’s confidential information) (citing Nutratech, Inc. v. 20 Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Brown Bag Software v. 21 Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1. Action: MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, 24 Inc., Case No. 8:22-cv-01599-JVS-DFMx. 25 2.2. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 26 designation of information or items under this Order. 27 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 28 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for STRADLING YOCCA -2- CARLSON & RAUTH [PROPOSED] ORDER LAWYERS NEWPORT BEACH 4874-6429-0867v2/105234-0002 Case 8:22-cv-01599-JVS-DFM Document 24 Filed 11/15/22 Page 4 of 24 Page ID #:243

1 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2 2.4. Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House 3 Counsel (as well as their support staff). 4 2.5. Designated House Counsel: House Counsel who seek access to 5 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information in this 6 matter. 7 2.6. Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 8 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 9 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES 10 ONLY.” 11 2.7. Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 12 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 13 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 14 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 15 2.8. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 16 matter pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel 17 to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or 18 current employee of a Party or of a Party’s competitor, and (3) at the time of 19 retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or of a Party’s 20 competitor. 21 2.9. “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 22 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” 23 disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 24 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

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

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mr-technologies-gmbh-v-western-digital-technologies-inc-cacd-2022.