Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. v. Nutrisystem, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 23, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-04755·Unknown

Opinion

Case 211L9-cv-04755-ODW-E Document 28-1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 1of 22 Page ID #:168

Michael K. Friedland (SBN 157,217) Michael.Friedland@knobbe.com 2\|| Lauren Keller Katzénellenbogen (SBN 223,370) Lauren.keller@knobbe.com 3|| Jason A. Champion (SBN 259,207) Jason, Champion @knobbe-com 4\| KNOBBE, MARTENS, OLSON & BEAR, LLP 2040 Main Street, Fourteenth Floor 5|| Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 760-0404 6|| Facsimile: (949) 760-9502 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 WESTERN DIVISION RD PACIFIC PACKAGING CONCEPTS, Civil Action No. INC., 2:19-cv-04755-ODW-Ex 13 Plaintiff, RORSSED] STIPULATED ROTECTIVE ORDER 14 v. 151 NUTRISYSTEM, INC., Hon. Otis D. Wright II 16 NURTISYSTEM IPHC, INC., 17 Defendants. 18 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Case 2/IL9-cv-04755-ODW-E Document 28-1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:169

1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 26(c) and to facilitate the production 2|| and receipt of information in discovery in this action, Plaintiff Pacific Packaging 3|| Concepts, Inc. (“PPCI”), and Defendant Nutrisystem, Inc. (“Nutrisystem”), have 4|| agreed and stipulated, through their respective counsel, to the entry of an order 5|| for the protection of trade secret, proprietary, and other confidential research, 6|| development, financial, business, or commercial information that may be 7\| produced or otherwise disclosed by them during the course of this action. 8 Upon consideration of the record and proceedings herein, the parties hereby 9]|| stipulate to the following terms: 10\| I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 11 1.1 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve 12|| the production of confidential, proprietary, or private information that may 13|| warrant special protection from public disclosure and from use for purposes other 14|| than those specifically set forth in this Order. The parties acknowledge that this 15|| Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 16\| discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 17\| only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 18 |} under the applicable legal principles. 19) If. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 20 2.1 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists 21|| and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 22|| proprietary information that warrants special protection from public disclosure 23|| and from use for any purpose other than the litigation or settlement of this action. 24{| Such confidential and proprietary materials and information include, among other 25|| things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 26|| confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 2711 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which

Case 2/19-cv-04755-ODW-E Document 28-1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 3 Page ID #:170

1|\ may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 2|| statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. The parties stipulate that 31 disclosure of this information would cause competitive harm to the parties. For 4|| example, the parties believe that competitors will gain an unfair advantage if they 5|| learn the parties’ Protected Material, such as financial information, accounting 6\|| information, customer lists, vendor lists, costs or profits structure, sales 7\| information, product lines, business and marketing strategy or information about 8|| operations. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 9|| prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 10\| adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 12|| preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of 13|| the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 14 || information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 15|| will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing will be 16|| so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 17\| confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 19|| 1011. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 20 SEAL 21 3.1 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, 22|| that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 23\| information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must 241) be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission 251) from the Court to file material under seal. 26 3.2 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to 27\| judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 28|| dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See

Case 2119-cv-04755-ODW-E Document 28-1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 4of22 Page ID #:171

1|| Kamakana vy. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 2\| Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 3|| Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 4|| stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing 5]| of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 6|| justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks 7\\ to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery 8|| Material as Protected Material does not—without the submission of competent 9|| evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 10\| seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 12 3.3 Further, if a party requests sealing of material used in connection with 131|| a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for 14|) the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought must be narrowly tailored to 15|| serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors □□□□□□ 16|| 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, 17|| document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with 18|| a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 19|| compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 20|| requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 21|| file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 22 3.4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 23|| protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 24|| can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public 25|| viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 26|| portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 27\| documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why 28 || redaction is not feasible.

Case 2119-cv-04755-ODW-E Document 28-1 Filed 01/23/20 Page 5 of 22 Page ID #:172

1|| IV.

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

Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. v. Nutrisystem, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. v. Nutrisystem, Inc. (Pacific Packaging Concepts, Inc. v. Nutrisystem, Inc.) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)