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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 1, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-00443·Unknown

Opinion

NIKE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-0443-MCS-PVC

Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v.

LA LA LAND PRODUCTION &

Defendant. Counterclaimant, v. NIKE, INC. Counterclaim- Defendant. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this Lanham Act and unfair competition 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. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 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. 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; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action involves claims and counterclaims brought under the trademark of the United States, California’s unfair competition law, and the common law on trademark infringement and unfair competition. The issues in this action include whether certain trademarks and trade dress have been infringed or diluted; whether certain trademarks are invalid as a matter of law or barred from enforcement by, among other things, utilitarian functionality, waiver, acquiescence, naked licensing, and ineligibility; and whether and to what extent Plaintiff has suffered harm, including reputational harm, from the alleged infringement. As such, this action may require production of trade secrets, product design documentation, marketing and business plans, and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, including pricing terms, financial performance, and business plans; information regarding confidential research, including market and competitive research; development, or commercial information, including information implicating privacy rights of third parties such as customer information and third-party agreements regarding royalties and intellectual property rights; proprietary information related to the manufacture of products; proprietary information related to customer and supplier relationships; and 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. The parties believe good cause exists to limit the disclosure and use of such confidential and proprietary information because disclosure to the public is likely to harm the parties’ businesses and competitive standing. See, e.g., In re Elec. Arts, Inc., 298 F. App’x 568, 569 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding compelling reasons to limit disclosure of pricing terms, royalty rates, and guaranteed minimum payment terms because of risk to party’s competitive standing); Rodman v. Safeway, Inc., 2013 WL 12173601, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (sealing “valuable internal information not otherwise made available to the public regarding Safeway.com’s pricing strategies, pricing methodology, internal business strategy, and financial performance, as well as transaction and customer data”). Further, disclosure of certain confidential and proprietary materials and information, including customer and supplier lists, supplier information, and product design documents, to the other party and its employees therefore creates a tangible risk of competitive harm. Thus, the parties believe certain confidential and proprietary materials and information in this case should be disclosed to outside counsel only and not to the receiving party or its employees. See Intel Corp. v. VIA allow in-house employee to view records because potential injury from disclosure to employees of opposing party “would be great, because the information could be used to duplicate [party’s] products, compete for its customers, or interfere with its business plan”); Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) Int’l., Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555- 56 (C.D. Cal. 2007) (recognizing that in cases involving claims of trademark infringement, production of customer and supplier lists “are customarily produced subject to an ‘attorney’s eyes only’ order”). 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. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: the above-captioned 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 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), 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” or “HIGHLY 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 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: “CONFIDENTIAL” information relating to highly sensitive financial information, including but not limited to, customer identification, sales prices to specific customers, profit margins and prospective marketing strategies, and highly sensitive technical information, including but not limited to, product design and development materials, schematics, drawings, specifications, manufacturing techniques and know- how, proprietary supplier and customer relationships, or other highly sensitive, trade secret technical information not yet publicly disclosed in which the Party or Non- party has an interest that such materials should be protected from disclosure to other parties, and should be strictly viewable only by Outside Counsel of Record or others as described in Section 7.3. 2.9: House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does

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

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

Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, Inc. (Nike, Inc. v. La La Land Production & Design, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)