One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 28, 2022
Docket2:20-cv-06339
StatusUnknown

This text of One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc.) 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
One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-GJS Document 85 Filed 01/28/22 Page 1 of 36 Page ID #:2451

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ONE-E-WAY, INC., 11 Case No. 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-GJS Plaintiff, 12 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER1 APPLE INC., 14 Defendant. 15

16 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. Protected Materials designated 23 under the terms of this Protective Order shall be used by a Receiving Party solely 24 for this case, and shall not be used directly or indirectly for any other purpose 25 whatsoever. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 26 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Gail J. Standish’s Procedures. Case 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-GJS Document 85 Filed 01/28/22 Page 2 of 36 Page ID #:2452

1 affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 2 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 5 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 6 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 7 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 8 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 9 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 10 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 11 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 12 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 13 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 14 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 15 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 16 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 17 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 18 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 19 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 20 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 21 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 22 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 23 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 24 record of this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 28 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 2 Case 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-GJS Document 85 Filed 01/28/22 Page 3 of 36 Page ID #:2453

1 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 2 to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 8 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 9 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 10 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 11 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 12 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 13 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 14 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 15 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 18 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 19 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 20 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 21 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 22 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 23 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 24 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 27 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 28 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 3 Case 2:20-cv-06339-JAK-GJS Document 85 Filed 01/28/22 Page 4 of 36 Page ID #:2454

1 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 2 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 6 designation of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ 8 EYES ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - 9 SOURCE CODE” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 10 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 12 Statement. 13 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff). 15 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL,” “CONFIDENTIAL – OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES 18 ONLY,” or “CONFIDENTIAL - OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY - 19 SOURCE CODE.” 20 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, including 21 from any non-party, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, 22 stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 23 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 24 discovery in this matter.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
One-E-Way, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/one-e-way-inc-v-apple-inc-cacd-2022.