Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 1, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00443
StatusUnknown

This text of Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, Inc. (Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, 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
Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION 14 NIKE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-0443-MCS-PVC 15

16 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 17 v.

18 LA LA LAND PRODUCTION & 19 DESIGN, INC.

20 Defendant. 21 LA LA LAND PRODUCTION & 22 DESIGN, INC., 23 Counterclaimant, 24 v. 25 NIKE, INC. 26 Counterclaim- 27 Defendant. 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this Lanham Act and unfair competition action is likely to involve 4 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 5 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 6 this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 7 petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 8 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 9 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 10 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 11 treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as 12 set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle 13 them 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 party 15 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 16 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 This action involves claims and counterclaims brought under the trademark of 18 the United States, California’s unfair competition law, and the common law on 19 trademark infringement and unfair competition. The issues in this action include 20 whether certain trademarks and trade dress have been infringed or diluted; whether 21 certain trademarks are invalid as a matter of law or barred from enforcement by, 22 among other things, utilitarian functionality, waiver, acquiescence, naked licensing, 23 and ineligibility; and whether and to what extent Plaintiff has suffered harm, including 24 reputational harm, from the alleged infringement. As such, this action may require 25 production of trade secrets, product design documentation, marketing and business 26 plans, and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 27 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure 1 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 2 confidential business or financial information, including pricing terms, financial 3 performance, and business plans; information regarding confidential research, 4 including market and competitive research; development, or commercial information, 5 including information implicating privacy rights of third parties such as customer 6 information and third-party agreements regarding royalties and intellectual property 7 rights; proprietary information related to the manufacture of products; proprietary 8 information related to customer and supplier relationships; and information otherwise 9 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 10 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 11 law. 12 The parties believe good cause exists to limit the disclosure and use of such 13 confidential and proprietary information because disclosure to the public is likely to 14 harm the parties’ businesses and competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 15 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to limit disclosure 16 of pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms because of 17 risk to party’s competitive standing); Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., 2013 WL 12173601, 18 at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (sealing “valuable internal information not otherwise made 19 available to the public regarding Safeway.com’s pricing strategies, pricing 20 methodology, internal business strategy, and financial performance, as well as 21 transaction and customer data”). 22 Further, disclosure of certain confidential and proprietary materials and 23 information, including customer and supplier lists, supplier information, and product 24 design documents, to the other party and its employees therefore creates a tangible 25 risk of competitive harm. Thus, the parties believe certain confidential and 26 proprietary materials and information in this case should be disclosed to outside 27 counsel only and not to the receiving party or its employees. See Intel Corp. v. VIA 1 allow in-house employee to view records because potential injury from disclosure to 2 employees of opposing party “would be great, because the information could be used 3 to duplicate [party’s] products, compete for its customers, or interfere with its 4 business plan”); Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555- 5 56 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing that in cases involving claims of trademark 6 infringement, production of customer and supplier lists “are customarily produced 7 subject to an ‘attorney’s eyes only’ order”). 8 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 9 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 10 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 11 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 12 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve 13 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. 14 It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 15 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 16 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 17 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Action: the above-captioned federal lawsuit. 20 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 21 of information or items under this Order. 22 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 23 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 24 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 25 Cause Statement. 26 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 27 support staff). 1 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 2 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 3 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” 4 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 5 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 6 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 7 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 8 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 9 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 10 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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

Related

Electronic Arts, Inc. v. United States District Court
298 F. App'x 568 (Ninth Circuit, 2008)
Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nike-inc-v-la-la-land-production-design-inc-cacd-2021.