N.Z. v. Fenix International Limited

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

Opinion

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

Robert B. Carey (pro hac vice) Leonard W. Aragon (pro hac vice) Michella A. Kras (pro hac vice) HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 Email: rob@hbsslaw.com leonarda@hbsslaw.com michellak@hbsslaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs (continued on next page) (Additional Counsel on Signature Page) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN DIVISION 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 and all others similarly situated, Assigned to Hon. Fred W. Slaughter Plaintiffs, [DISCOVERY MATTER: Referred to Magistrate Hon. Stephanie S. v. Christensen] [PROPOSED] STIPULATED BADDIES LLC, MOXY LLC (also d/b/a DYSRPT AGENCY), Complaint filed: July 29, 2024 BEHAVE AGENCY LLC, A.S.H. AGENCY, INC., AND ELITE CREATORS LLC, Defendants. DAnavdirde aA R. .M GcoGlde e( p(proro h haac cv ivciec)e ) Shana H. Khader (pro hac vice) TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 973-0900 Facsimile: (202) 973-0950 Email: agold@tzlegal.com dmcgee@tzlegal.com skhader@tzlegal.com

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

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiffs FOLLOWS: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this 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. 1.2 Good Cause Statement. This action is likely to involve information that qualifies as proprietary trade secrets, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranty. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential, strategic, research, development, or commercial information, etc. that could materially affect their business/financial/commercial interests. 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, including but not limited to shielding any party from liability, 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. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. 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; 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown by the designating party, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If the confidential portions of the document can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any statement of good cause set forth by the designating party that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: N.Z., et al. v. Fenix Int’l Ltd., et al. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items as CONFIDENTIAL 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 Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and In-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.” 2.6 Disclosure or Disc

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)