Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. Ventis Pharma, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 13, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-07554·Unknown

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4 PACIRA BIOSCIENCES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-7554-MRA-RAO 5 Plaintiff, 6 v. 7 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 8 VENTIS PHARMA, INC., 0F

Defendant. 9

10 11 1. GENERAL 12 1.1 Purposes And Limitations: Discovery in this action is likely to involve 13 production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special 14 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 15 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 16 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. 17 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 18 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 19 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 20 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 21 1.2 Good Cause Statement: This action is likely to involve trade secrets, 22 customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, 23 financial, technical and/ or proprietary information for which special protection 24 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 25 action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. 1 consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 2 information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 3 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 4 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 5 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 6 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 7 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 8 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 9 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 10 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 11 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 12 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 13 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 14 and that nothing be so designated without a good-faith belief that it has been 15 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 16 should not be part of the public record of this case. 17 1.3 Acknowledgement Of Procedure For Filing Under Seal: The parties 18 further acknowledge, as set forth in Paragraph 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 19 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 20 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 21 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 22 material under seal. 23 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 24 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 25 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 26 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 27 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 1 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 2 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 3 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 4 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 5 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or as 6 HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the 7 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 8 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 9 protectable—constitute good cause. 10 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 11 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 12 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 13 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 14 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 15 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 16 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 17 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 18 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 19 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 20 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 21 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 22 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 23 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 24 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 25 26 2. DEFINITIONS 27 2.1 Action: The lawsuit captioned Pacira BioSciences, Inc., v. Ventis 1 Pharma, Inc., Case Number Case No. 2:24-cv-7554-MRA-RAO proceeding in the 2 United States District Court for the Central District of California. 3 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 4 designation of information or items under this Order. 5 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 6 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 8 the Good Cause Statement. 9 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 10 Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or 11 maintained) or tangible things that qualifies or qualify for protection under Federal 12 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, 13 and that is or are deserving of a stricter designation because it contains or they 14 contain extremely sensitive CONFIDENTIAL information that, if disclosed to 15 another Party or Non-Party, would create a substantial risk of harm that cannot be 16 avoided by less restrictive means. 17 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 18 their support staff). 19 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 20 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 21 “CONFIDENTIAL” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 22 ONLY.” 23 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 24 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 25 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or 26 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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

Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. Ventis Pharma, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. Ventis Pharma, Inc. (Pacira BioSciences, Inc. v. Ventis Pharma, 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)
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)