Paul Martin v. Ontel Products Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 17, 2021
Docket2:20-cv-08158
StatusUnknown

This text of Paul Martin v. Ontel Products Corporation (Paul Martin v. Ontel Products Corporation) 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
Paul Martin v. Ontel Products Corporation, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 PAUL MARTIN, individually and on Case No.: 2:20-CV-08158-DSF-PVCx 12 behalf of all others similarly situated, PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 Plaintiffs, 14 v. 15 ONTEL PRODUCTS 16 CORPORATION, a New Jersey Corporation, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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. 12 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 Plaintiff Paul Martin alleges that he was confused by one of Defendant Ontel 14 Products Corporation’s (“Ontel”) websites, and as a result of this confusion he 15 purchased two of Defendant’s Artic Air Ultra products instead of one. He also 16 alleges that, because he was confused by the website, he purchased shipping 17 insurance that he did not want. Plaintiff alleges that other Ontel websites through 18 which it sold other products contain substantially similar representations. This is a 19 putative class action. 20 Given these legal issues and factual allegations, and given that this is a 21 putative class action, this action may involve the production of the contact 22 information of third-party consumers who purchased products from Ontel. This 23 action will also likely involve the production of Ontel’s sales figures, including the 24 unit number and dollar value of such sales for various products of Ontel. This 25 information is proprietary to Ontel, not publicly available, and if it were publicly 26 disseminated would cause competitive harm to Ontel, as its competitors would 27 have a detailed window into its sales figures for various products and could 28 potentially use that information to undercut Ontel, or otherwise compete with it. 1 Other discoverable information may include confidential marketing strategies of 2 Ontel, and information regarding its internal business-making processes that would 3 also result in competitive harm to Ontel if it were publicly disclosed. 4 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 5 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 6 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 7 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 8 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 9 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 10 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 11 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 12 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 13 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 14 1.3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 15 SEAL 16 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 17 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 18 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 19 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 20 to file material under seal. 21 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 22 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 23 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 24 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 25 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 26 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 27 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 28 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 1 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 2 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 3 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 4 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 5 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 6 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 7 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 8 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 9 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 10 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 11 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 12 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 13 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 14 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 15 declaration. 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 17 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 18 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 19 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 20 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 21 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 24 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 25 designation of information or items under this Order. 26 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of 27 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 28 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 1 the Good Cause Statement. 2 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 3 their support staff). 4 2.5 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information 5 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 6 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 7 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 8 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 9 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 10 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 11 2.7 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 12 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 13 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 14 2.8 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this 15 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 16 outside counsel.

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)
Warren v. Steer
5 A. 4 (Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, 1886)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Paul Martin v. Ontel Products Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/paul-martin-v-ontel-products-corporation-cacd-2021.