Olive Hill Street Partners, LLC v. SPC Owner LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 14, 2021·No. 2:21-cv-02003·Unknown

Opinion

1 Thomas W. Casparian (SBN 169763) 2 COZEN O’CONNOR 401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850 3 Santa Monica, CA 90401 4 Telephone: (310) 393-4000 Facsimile: (310) 394-4700 5 tcasparian@cozen.com 6 Matthew E. Lewitz (SBN 325379) 7 COZEN O’CONNOR 8 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 9 Telephone: (213) 892-7900 10 Facsimile: (213) 892-7999 mlewitz@cozen.com 11 Attorneys for Defendant SPC Owner LLC 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – WESTERN DIVISION 15 OLIVE/HILL STREET PARTNERS, LLC, a Case No. 2:21-cv-02003-CAS (PDx) 16 Delaware limited liability company, 17 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ORDER1 18

19 vs. Action Filed: March 4, 2021 20 SPC OWNER LLC, a Delaware limited Trial: January 17, 2023 21 liability company; and DOES 1-20, inclusive;

22 Defendants. 23 24 25 26 27 1 SPC OWNER LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, 2

3 Counter-Claimant,

4 vs. 5 OLIVE/HILL STREET PARTNERS, LLC, a 6 Delaware limited liability company, and 7 ROES 1-20

8 Counter-Defendant. 9 10 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 11 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 12 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 13 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 14 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 15 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 16 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 17 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 18 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 19 applicable legal principles. 20 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 21 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, other valuable research, 22 development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for 23 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 24 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 25 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 26 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, 27 confidential proposed purchase and sale terms, term sheets, or other confidential 1 research, development, or commercial information (including information 2 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 3 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 4 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 5 Due to the potential for competitive harm, information such as business strategies 6 and methods, identities of investors and potential acquisitions may need to be 7 disclosed only to a party’s attorneys. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 8 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 9 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 10 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 11 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 12 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 13 information is justified in this matter. To adequately protect information the parties 14 are entitled to keep confidential and to prevent competitive harm two tiers of 15 confidentiality designations—“CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY 16 CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY EYES ONLY”—are required. It is the intent of the 17 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 18 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 19 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 20 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 and 25 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 26 file material under seal. 27 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 1 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 2 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 3 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 4 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 5 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 6 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 7 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 8 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 9 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 10 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 11 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 12 protectable—constitute good cause. 13 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 14 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 15 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 16 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 17 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 18 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 19 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 20 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 21 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 22 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 23 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 24 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 25 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 26 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 27 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: This pending civil action captioned Olive/Hill Street 3 Partners, LLC v. SPC Owner LLC (Case No. 2:21-cv-02003-CAS (PDx)). 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 5 the designation of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 7 how it is generated, stored or maintained), documents, testimony or tangible things 8 that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 9 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEY EYES ONLY” 11 Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or 12 maintained), documents, testimony or tangible things or the portion thereof that: (a) 13 qualify for protection under

Olive Hill Street Partners, LLC v. SPC Owner LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Olive Hill Street Partners, LLC v. SPC Owner LLC (Olive Hill Street Partners, LLC v. SPC Owner LLC) — 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)
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)