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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided November 15, 2022·No. 8:22-cv-01599·Unknown

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 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. 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

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

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

MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (MR Technologies, GMBH v. Western Digital Technologies, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)