Pait Solutions LLC v. Dejant Group Corp.et al

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 11, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-08666
StatusUnknown

This text of Pait Solutions LLC v. Dejant Group Corp.et al (Pait Solutions LLC v. Dejant Group Corp.et al) 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
Pait Solutions LLC v. Dejant Group Corp.et al, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAIT SOLUTIONS LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; et al. Case No. 2:24-cv—08666 RGK (PVCx) 12 Lo. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 Vv. 14 15 DEJANT VENTURES CORP, erroneously sued as “Dejant Group 16 Corp.”, a California corporation; et al., 17 18 Defendants. || DEJANT VENTURES CORP, a 20 California corporation, 71 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 22 V. 23 4 PAIT SOLUTIONS LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; et al., 25 36 Counterclaim Defendants. 27 28

1 | 1. INTRODUCTION 2 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 5 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 6 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 7 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 8 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 9 |) discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 10 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 11 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 12 || in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to 13 || file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the 14 || procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 15 || seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 16 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 The parties in the above-captioned action allege they are former business 18 || associates and are now direct competitors of each other for the marketing, 19 || distribution, and sale of beverage products, and licensing of related intellectual 20 || property. The parties have asserted cross-actions against each other for infringement 21 || of intellectual property, breach of contract, and various business torts. The parties 22 || allege this case is likely to involve discovery of their trade secrets, customer and 23 || pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 24 || technical and/or proprietary information, from both the parties and from third parties 25 || who transact business with the parties, for which special protection from public 26 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 27 || warranted. 28

1 Such confidential and proprietary materials and information is anticipated to 2 || consist of, among other things, the parties’ confidential business or financial 3 || information, confidential information concerning the identity of customers and 4 || distributors and their preferences, the parties’ costs of goods sold and pricing 5 || practices, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 6 || confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 7 || information implicating privacy rights of third parties), contracts, non-public 8 || compilations of retail prices, supplier and vendor agreements, supplier and vendor 9 |) identities, supplier pricing information and commissions or fees paid to suppliers, 10 || personnel files, non-public policies and procedures, as well as other documents and 11 || information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 12 || privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 13 || court rules, case decisions, or common law. 14 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 15 || resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 16 || protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 17 || parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 18 || and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 19 || serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 1s justified in this 20 || matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 21 || confidential or attorneys eyes’ only 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, or in the case of the most competitively sensitive material, why it 25 || should be produced solely on an attorneys’ eyes only basis. 26 27 28

1 13 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 2 SEAL 3 The parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 4 || entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets 5 || forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 6 || when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal (see Kamakana v. City and 10 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 12 || Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 13 || require good cause showing)), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 14 || reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 15 || respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 16 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” or 17 || “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL — ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without 18 || the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establish that the material 19 || sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 20 || protectable—constitute good cause. 21 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 22 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 23 || relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 24 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 25 || each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 26 || under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 27 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 28

1 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 2 || the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 || documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 6 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 7 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 8 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 10 || 2. DEFINITIONS 11 2.1 Action: the above-captioned pending federal lawsuit.

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)
Pait Solutions LLC v. Dejant Group Corp.et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pait-solutions-llc-v-dejant-group-corpet-al-cacd-2025.