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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 21, 2022
Docket5:21-cv-01556
StatusUnknown

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

Opinion

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

1 UMBERG ZIPSER LLP Mark A. Finkelstein (SBN 173851) 2 mfinkelstein@umbergzipser.com 1920 Main Street, Ste. 750 3 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 679-0052 4 Facsimile: (949) 679-0461

5 DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC 6 James K. Cleland (Pro Hac Vice) JCleland@dickinson-wright.com 7 (734) 436-7356 Christopher J. Ryan (Pro Hac Vice) 8 CRyan@dickinson-wright.com (734) 623-1907 9 Yafeez S. Fatabhoy (Pro Hac Vice) YFatabhoy@dickinson-wright.com 10 (248) 205-3264 350 S. Main Street, Ste 300 11 Ann Arbor, MI 48104 Facsimile: (844) 670-6009 12 Attorneys for Plaintiff 13 Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 PENSMORE REINFORCEMENT CASE NO.: 5:21-cv-1556-JWH-SHK TECHNOLOGIES, LLC d/b/a 17 HELIX STEEL, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 18 Plaintiff, ORDER

19 v.

20 CORNERSTONE MANUFACTURING AND 21 DISTRIBUTION, INC.,

22 Defendant.

24 25 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Plaintiff and Counterclaim 26 27 28 1 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:709

1 1. A. PURPOSE AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 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 13 to 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 15 party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 18 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 19 20 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 21 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 22 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 23 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 24 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 25 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 26 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 27 28 2 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:710

1 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 2 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 3 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 4 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the 5 parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 6 reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct 7 of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of 8 justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the 9 intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 10 11 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that 12 it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 13 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 14 Additionally, there is a need for a two-tiered, attorneys’ eyes only protective 15 order that designates certain material as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes 16 Only,” in this action. See Elements Spirits, Inc. v. Iconic Brands, Inc., Civ. No. CV 17 15-02692 DDP (AGRx), 2016 WL 2642206, at *1 -2 (C.D. Cal. May 9, 2016) 18 (holding that protective order with attorneys’ eyes only designation was warranted 19 to protect party’s confidential information) (citing Nutratech, Inc. v. Syntech Int’l, 20 Inc., 242 F.R.D. 552, 555 (C.D. Cal. 2008); Brown Bag Software v. Symantec 21 Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992)). 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 24 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Pensmore Reinforcement 25 Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc., Case No. 26 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK. 27 28 3 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:711

1 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 2 designation of information or items under this Order. 3 2.3.1 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 4 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 5 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 6 the Good Cause Statement. 7 2.3.2 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 8 Information or Items: sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of 9 which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm 10 11 that could not be avoided by less restrictive means, and that qualifies for protection 12 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 13 Cause Statement. 14 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 15 their support staff). 16 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 17 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 18 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 19 ONLY.” 20 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 21 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 22 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 23 24 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 25 26 27 28 4 Case 5:21-cv-01556-JWH-SHK Document 59 Filed 03/21/22 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:712

1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 2 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 3 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 5 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 6 counsel. 7 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 8 or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 9 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 10 11 Party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 12 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 13 which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Pensmore Reinforcement Technologies, LLC v. Cornerstone Manufacturing and Distribution, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pensmore-reinforcement-technologies-llc-v-cornerstone-manufacturing-and-cacd-2022.