N.Z. v. Fenix International Limited

District Court, C.D. California·Decided July 3, 2025·No. 8:24-cv-01655·Unknown

Opinion

1 CHhArGisEtoNphSe Br ERR. PMitAouNn S(SOBBNO L29 S0H23A5P) IRO LLP 2 301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 920 Pasadena, California 91101 3 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 4 Email: christopherp@hbsslaw.com

5 Robert B. Carey (pro hac vice) Leonard W. Aragon (pro hac vice) 6 Michella A. Kras (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 7 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 8 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 9 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com leonarda@hbsslaw.com 10 michellak@hbsslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page) 11 (Additional Counsel on Signature Page) 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 13 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 SOUTHERN DIVISION 15 16 N.Z., R.M., B.L., S.M., and A.L., Case No. 8:24-cv-01655-FWS-SSC individually and on behalf of themselves 17 and all others similarly situated, Assigned to Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 18 Plaintiffs, [DISCOVERY MATTER: Referred to Magistrate Hon. Stephanie S. 19 v. Christensen] 20 FENIX INTERNATIONAL LIMITED, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 21 FENIX INTERNET LLC, BOSS PROTECTIVE ORDER BADDIES LLC, MOXY 22 MANAGEMENT, UNRULY AGENCY LLC (also d/b/a DYSRPT AGENCY), Complaint filed: July 29, 2024 23 BEHAVE AGENCY LLC, A.S.H. 24 AGENCY, CONTENT X, INC., VERGE AGENCY, INC., AND ELITE 25 CREATORS LLC, 26 Defendants. 27 28 1 DAnavdirde aA R. .M GcoGlde e( p(proro h haac cv ivciec)e ) 2 Shana H. Khader (pro hac vice) TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 3 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 4 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 5 Email: agold@tzlegal.com dmcgee@tzlegal.com 6 skhader@tzlegal.com

7 Andrew W. Knox (pro hac vice) TIMONEY KNOX LLP 8 400 Maryland Drive Fort Washington, PA 19034 9 Phone: (215) 540-2643 Facsimile: (215) 540-2643 10 Email: aknox@timoneyknox.com

11 Keith T. Vernon (pro hac vice) TIMONEY KNOX LLP 12 1717 K Street NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20006 13 Phone: (202) 349-9864 Facsimile: (215) 540-2643 14 Email: kvernon@timoneyknox.com

15 Andrew C. Stone (pro hac vice) Seth T. Goertz (pro hac vice) 16 DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 2325 E Camelback Road, Suite 300 17 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 735-2691 18 Facsimile: (602) 926-2471 Email: stone.andy@dorsey.com 19 goertz.seth@dorsey.com

20 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 ALL PARTIES, BY AND THROUGH THEIR COUNSEL, STIPULATE AS 2 FOLLOWS: 3 1. INTRODUCTION 4 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve 5 production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special 6 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 7 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 8 stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 9 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 10 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 11 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 12 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 13 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 14 This action is likely to involve information that qualifies as proprietary trade 15 secrets, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which 16 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 17 prosecution of this action is warranty. Such confidential and proprietary materials 18 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 19 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 20 confidential, strategic, research, development, or commercial information, etc. that 21 could materially affect their business/financial/commercial interests. Accordingly, 22 to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes 23 over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 24 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 25 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 26 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 27 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 28 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 1 tactical reasons, including but not limited to shielding any party from liability, and 2 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 3 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 4 part of the public record of this case. 5 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The parties 6 further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 7 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 8 Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards 9 that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material 10 under seal. 11 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 12 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 13 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana 14 v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. 15 Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), and a 16 specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary 17 support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material 18 that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 19 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 20 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed 21 under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 22 constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 24 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown by 25 the designating party, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the 26 specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 27 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing 28 sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion 1 or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported 2 by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 3 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must 4 be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 6 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 7 redacted. If the confidential portions of the document can be redacted, then a 8 redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 9 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any statement of 10 good cause set forth by the designating party that seeks to file documents under 11 seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 12 13 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: N.Z., et al. v. Fenix Int’l Ltd., et al. 15 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 16 designation of information or items as CONFIDENTIAL under this Order.

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

N.Z. v. Fenix International Limited, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

N.Z. v. Fenix International Limited (N.Z. v. Fenix International Limited) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)