Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-fee System GmbH

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 6, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-09295
StatusUnknown

This text of Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-fee System GmbH (Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-fee System GmbH) 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
Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-fee System GmbH, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

1 Douglas H. Carsten (SBN 198467) Wayne Barsky, SBN 116731 dcarsten@mwe.com wbarsky@gibsondunn.com 2 Katherine Pappas (SBN 329411) Y. Ernest Hsin, SBN 201668 kpappas@mwe.com ehsin@gibsondunn.com 3 McDermott Will & Emery LLP Christine L. Ranney, SBN 295773 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 250 cranney@gibsondunn.com 4 Irvine, CA 92612 Andrew Philip Blythe, SBN 321867 Telephone: (949) 620-6111 ablythe@gibsondunn.com 5 Facsimile: (949) 851-9348 Darish Huynh, SBN 324056 dhuynh@gibsondunn.com 6 Ian B. Brooks (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP ibrooks@mwe.com 2029 Century Park East, Suite 4000 7 Kavya Rallabhandi (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Los Angeles, CA 90067-3026 krallabhandi@mwe.com Telephone: (310) 552-8500 8 McDermott Will & Emery LLP Facsimile: (310) 551-8741 500 North Capitol Street, NW 9 Washington, DC 20001 Attorneys for Plaintiff Nespresso USA, Inc. Telephone: (202) 756-8075 and Counterclaim-Defendant Nestlé 10 Facsimile: (202) 591-2827 Nespresso S.A.

11 Attorneys for Defendant/ Counter-Claimant K-fee System GmbH 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14 Nespresso USA, Inc., 15 Case No. 2:22-cv-09295-GW (AGRx) 16 Plaintiff, [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 v. NOTE CHANGES MADE BY COURT 18 K-fee System GmbH, 19 Defendant. 20

21 K-fee System GmbH, 22 Counterclaim-Plaintiff, 23 v. 24 25 Nespresso USA, Inc., Nestlé Nespresso S.A., and Société des Produits Nestlé S.A., 26 Counterclaim-Defendants. 27

28 1 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the 2 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and subject to approval of the Court, by K-fee System 3 GmbH (“K-fee”), and Nespresso USA Inc. and Nestlé Nespresso S.A. (collectively, 4 “Nespresso”), and their respective undersigned counsel that this Stipulation and Order 5 shall govern the treatment of confidential, proprietary, privileged, private, or otherwise 6 non-public information in this action. 7 Accordingly, based upon the agreement of the parties, IT IS HEREBY 8 ORDERED pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that the 9 following provisions shall govern the conduct of further proceedings in this action. 10 Any use of Protected Information at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial 11 judge. This order does not govern the use of Protected Information at trial. 12 DEFINITIONS 13 1. The term “Protected Information” shall include all information that the 14 designating party believes constitutes, discloses, or relates to proprietary business 15 information, processes, operations, research, technical or developmental information, 16 production, marketing, sales, shipments, or other proprietary data or information of 17 commercial value not generally available to the public, including, but not limited to, 18 trade secrets. The information contained therein and all copies, abstracts, excerpts, 19 analyses, or other writings that contain, reflect, reveal, suggest, or otherwise disclose 20 such Protected Information shall also be deemed Protected Information. Each party 21 shall act in good faith in designating information as Protected Information. 22 2. “CONFIDENTIAL” information means Protected Information 23 designated in accordance with paragraph 6. 24 3. “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 25 information means Protected Information that is the subset of “CONFIDENTIAL” 26 information designated in accordance with paragraph 8. 27 4. “SPECIAL PROTECTED DATA” means Protected Information 28 1 designated in accordance with paragraph 10. 2 5. The term “Qualified Person” shall mean: 3 (a) Court and any Court personnel involved with this action; 4 (b) K-fee’s outside counsel, their legal assistants, and members of their 5 support staffs; 6 (c) Nespresso’s outside counsel, their legal assistants, and members of 7 their support staffs; 8 (d) Any independent expert or consultant who is retained by counsel 9 solely for the purpose of assisting in this action, subject to the provisions of paragraph 10 22; 11 (e) Photocopy services; 12 (f) Professional translators who are retained by the attorneys for the 13 parties for the purposes of this litigation; 14 (g) Stenographic reporters, videographers, official court reporters, and 15 their assistants who are engaged in such proceedings as are necessary for the 16 preparation and trial of this action; 17 (h) Jury or trial consultants and persons employed or retained by them 18 solely in providing litigation support services to the parties’ outside counsel law firms; 19 (i) Document imaging and database services and consultants retained 20 to set up, maintain, and/or operate litigation databases for this litigation; 21 (j) Graphics or design consultants retained to prepare demonstrative or 22 other exhibits for use in this action; 23 (k) Up to two designated in-house legal personnel for the receiving 24 party and respective secretarial, clerical, paralegal and other supporting personnel; 25 (i) For K-fee, these in-house legal personnel are Dr. Martin 26 Fröhlich, and Dr. Kai Danelzik. 27 (ii) For Nespresso, these in-house legal personnel are Douglas 28 1 Besman, and Michael Prewitt. 2 (iii) The parties reserve the right to propose at a later date to 3 designate additional in-house legal personnel employed by 4 the parties. 5 (l) Any other person who is designated as a Qualified Person by order 6 of the Court or by written agreement of the parties, provided that such person completes 7 and signs the undertaking in the form of Exhibit A. 8 USE OF PROTECTED INFORMATION 9 6. A producing party may designate any material “CONFIDENTIAL” for 10 protection under this protective order where that material constitutes or discloses 11 “CONFIDENTIAL” information. “CONFIDENTIAL” information, as that term is 12 used herein, comprises information that the producing party in good faith contends to 13 constitute or contain information that is (a) confidential, sensitive, competitive, or 14 potentially invasive of an individual’s privacy interests; (b) not generally known in the 15 context or form as known by the producing party; (c) not normally revealed to the 16 public or third parties or, if disclosed to third parties, is such that the producing party 17 would require such third parties to maintain the information in confidence; and 18 (d) information (regardless of how generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things 19 that qualify for protection under standards developed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c). 20 “CONFIDENTIAL” information includes, but is not limited to, confidential research, 21 development, technical, commercial, or financial information, as well as other such 22 information that the requesting party and non-parties would not have access to but for 23 this litigation. 24 7. Access to any “CONFIDENTIAL” information shall be limited to 25 Qualified Persons as described in paragraph 5. 26 8. A producing party may designate any material “HIGHLY 27 CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE COUNSEL’S EYES ONLY” for protection under this 28 1 protective order where the producing party believes in good faith that the material 2 constitutes or discloses highly sensitive business information or items the unrestricted 3 disclosure of which to a requesting party or a receiving party would create a substantial 4 risk of harm, including, but not limited to, the producing party’s planned commercial 5 products and planned licensing agreements.

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

Related

In Re Deutsche Bank Trust Co. Americas
605 F.3d 1373 (Federal Circuit, 2010)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nespresso USA, Inc. v. K-fee System GmbH, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nespresso-usa-inc-v-k-fee-system-gmbh-cacd-2023.