NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 21, 2021·No. 3:21-cv-00073·Unknown

Opinion

Jon T. Pearson (10182) Jenapher Lin (14233) 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor Las Vegas, NV 89134 702.669.4600 702.669.4650 fax jtpearson@hollandhart.com jlin@hollandhart.com Counsel for Plaintiff-Counterdefendant NLRK LLC NLRK LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00073-LRH-WGC Plaintiff, Stipulated Protective Order Governing Confidential Information v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC; Nancy Hallberg; Kris Sieradzki; and Brian Sullivan, Defendants. And All Related Matters. In the interests of (i) ensuring an efficient and prompt resolution of the above-captioned matter; (ii) facilitating discovery by the parties litigating this matter; and (iii) protecting the parties’ and non-parties’ confidential information from improper disclosure or use, and in accordance with Rule 26(c)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the above-captioned parties stipulate and agree that the handling of confidential material in these proceedings shall be governed by the provisions set forth below (this “Protective Order”). 1. DEFINITIONS 1.1. “Challenging Party” refers to a party or non-party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Protective Order. 1.2. “Confidential Information” refers to any information (regardless of how it is sensitive and personal nature and qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in accordance with applicable laws, statutes, or regulations. Examples of “Confidential Information” include, but are not limited to: (i) an individual’s Social Security number, taxpayer identification number, financial account number, driver’s license number, state- or federal-issued identification number, passport number, or information disclosing an individual’s income, assets, credit history, or bank account information; (ii) date of birth (other than year); (iii) employment personnel files, employee benefits data, wage statements or earnings statements; and (iv)any sensitive health information identifiable by individual, such as an individual’s medical or mental health records. 1.3. “Designating Party” refers to a party or non-party that designates Discovery Material as “Confidential.” 1.4. “Discovery Material” refers to 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. 1.5. “Privileged Information” refers to any Discovery Material that a party or non- party claims should not be disclosed because of a privilege, including, but not limited to, the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine. 1.6. “Producing Party” refers to a party or non-party who has expressly agreed in writing to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order that produces Discovery Material in this action. 1.7. “Protected Material” refers to any Discovery Material designated as “Confidential.” 1.8. “Receiving Party” refers to a party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 2. SCOPE 2.1. The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only Protected excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (iii) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by the parties or their counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 2.2. The protections conferred by this Protective Order, however, do not cover the following information or materials that: 2.2.1. were lawfully in the Receiving Party’s possession before such information being designated as Confidential Information in this action, and that the Receiving Party is not otherwise obligated to treat as confidential; 2.2.2. were obtained, without any benefit or use of Confidential Information, from a third party having the right to disclose such information to the Receiving Party without restriction or obligation of confidentiality; 2.2.3. were independently developed after the time of disclosure by personnel who did not have access to the Producing Party’s Confidential Information; 2.2.4. have been or become part of the public domain by publication or otherwise and not due to any unauthorized act or omission on the part of a Receiving Party; or 2.2.5. under law, have been declared to be in the public domain. 2.3. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 3. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations imposed by this Protective Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order otherwise directs. Final disposition shall be deemed to be the later of (i) dismissal of all claims and defenses in this action, with or without prejudice; and (ii) final judgment herein after the completion and exhaustion of all appeals, rehearings, remands, trials, or reviews of this action, including the time limits for filing any motions or applications for extension of time pursuant to applicable law. 4. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 4.1. Designation of Information: Any Producing Party may designate Discovery “Confidential” under the terms of this Protective Order if the Producing Party in good faith reasonably believes that such Discovery Material contains non-public, confidential information as defined herein. Any Receiving Party that receives Discovery Material with no confidentiality designation may ask the Producing Party that the Discovery Material be designated “Confidential.” If Confidential Information is produced via an electronic form on a computer readable medium (e.g., DVD-ROM), other digital storage medium, or via Internet transmission, the Producing Party shall affix in a prominent place on the storage medium or container file on which the information is stored, and on any container(s) for such medium, the legend “Includes Confidential Information.” 4.2. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material for Protection: Each Producing Party that designates, or Designating Party that proposes to designate, information or items for protection under this Protective Order must take care to limit any such designation or proposal to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. Mass, indiscriminate or routinized designations are prohibited. The Producing Party must designate, or the Designating Party must propose, for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify—so that other portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Protective Order. 4.3. Belated Designation of Confidential Information. If a Producing Party determines in good faith and in accordance with Section 4.2 above that any documents, things, or responses previously produced in the course of discovery in this action should be designated as Confidential Information, but were not so designated at the time of production, it shall advise any party who has received such material of this fact, and all copies of such document, things, or responses, or portions thereof deemed to be confidential shall be marked “Confidential” (whether produced in hard copy or electronic form) at the expense of the Producing Party and treated as such by all recipients. The Producing Party may inform the recipients that a document is Confidential by providing the Bates number of the document in writing. information produced in discovery as Confidential shall not be deemed, by itself, to be a waiver of the right to so designate such Discovery Materials as Confidential Information. Within a reasonable time of learning of any such inadvertent failure, the Producing Party shall notify all receiving pa

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

NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC, (D. Nev. 2021).

NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC (NLRK LLC v. Indoor Ag-Con LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)