Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedDecember 28, 2020
Docket8:19-cv-01710
StatusUnknown

This text of Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa (Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa) 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
Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THE OHIO HOUSE LLC, 11 Case No. 8:19-cv-01710-JVS-GJS Plaintiff, 12 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER1 CITY OF COSTA MESA, 14 Defendant. 15

17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 26 27 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve the disclosure of private business information 5 of plaintiff and the personal information of persons who occupied a dwelling owned 6 and operated by plaintiff. None of this information is available to the public. 7 Such confidential and proprietary information consists of, among other things, 8 records reflecting plaintiff's internal business operations and residents' information 9 that may implicate their privacy rights and potentially the rights of additional third 10 parties. 11 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 12 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 13 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 14 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 15 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 16 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 17 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 18 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 19 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 20 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 21 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 22 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 23 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 24 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 25 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 26 to file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 1 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 2 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 3 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 4 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 5 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 6 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 7 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 8 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 9 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 10 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 11 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 12 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 13 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 14 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 15 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 16 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 17 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 18 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 19 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 20 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 21 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 22 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 23 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 24 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 25 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 26 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 27 2. DEFINITIONS 1 related actions.] 2 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 3 designation of information or items under this Order. 4 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 5 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 6 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 7 the Good Cause Statement. 8 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 9 their support staff). 10 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 11 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 12 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 13 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 14 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 15 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 16 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 17 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 18 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 19 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 20 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 21 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 22 counsel. 23 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 24 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 25 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 26 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 27 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 1 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 2 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 3 support staffs). 4 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 5 Discovery Material in this Action. 6 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation 7 support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 8 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) 9 and their employees and subcontractors. 10 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 11 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 12 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery 13 Material from a Producing Party. 3.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Ohio House, LLC v. City of Costa Mesa, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ohio-house-llc-v-city-of-costa-mesa-cacd-2020.