Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 21, 2022·No. 5:21-cv-01556·Unknown

Opinion

Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:708

Mark A. Finkelstein (SBN 173851) mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com 1920 Main Street, Ste. 750 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 679-0052 Facsimile: (949) 679-0461

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC James K. Cleland (Pro Hac Vice) JCleland@dickinson-wright.com (734) 436-7356 Christopher J. Ryan (Pro Hac Vice) CRyan@dickinson-wright.com (734) 623-1907 Yafeez S. Fatabhoy (Pro Hac Vice) YFatabhoy@dickinson-wright.com (248) 205-3264 350 S. Main Street, Ste 300 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 Attorneys for Plaintiff Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC PENSMORE REINFORCEMENT CASE NO.: 5:21-cv-1556-JWH-SHK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC d/b/a STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

MANUFACTURING AND

Defendant.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Plaintiff and Counterclaim 1 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:709

1. A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 2 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:710

be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Additionally, there is a need for a two-tiered, attorneys’ eyes only protective order that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” in this action. See Elements Spirits, Inc. v. Iconic Brands, Inc., Civ. No. CV 15-02692 DDP (AGRx), 2016 WL 2642206, at *1 -2 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) (holding that protective order with attorneys’ eyes only designation was warranted to protect party’s confidential information) (citing Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc., Case No. 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK. 3 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:711

2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3.1 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.3.2 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means, and that qualifies for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 4 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:712

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

Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc. (Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech (SSPF) International, Inc.
242 F.R.D. 552 (C.D. California, 2007)
Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp.
960 F.2d 1465 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)