Re-Marketing Group, Inc. v. Mark Miller

District Court, C.D. California·Decided April 15, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-09505·Unknown

Opinion

2 4 6 g UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RE-MARKETING GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:20-cv—09505—CAS-AFM a California corporation, ORDER ENTERING 12 Plaintiff, TIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 VS. Hon. Alexander F. MacKinnon 14|| MARK MILLER, an individual; and WOW BARGAINS & CLOSEOUTS, INC., a California corporation, 16 Defendants. 17 WOW BARGAINS & CLOSEOUTS, INC., a California corporation, 19 Counterclaimant, 20 VS. 21|| RE-MARKETING GROUP, INC., a California corporation. and 22|| GREGORY D. SHERWIN, an individual, 23 Counterclaim-Defendants. 24 25 26 27 28 DADACERTAD EDINA STD ATER DDA THIE

1 For good cause show, the Court hereby enters the following Protective Order, 2|| which has been stipulated to between the parties in the above-referenced matter: 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 5 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 6|| proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 7|| disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 8|| be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 10] 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. 14 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 15 This action is likely to involve customer lists, pricing lists, and other 16] commercial, financial, and/or proprietary information for which special protection 17|| from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 18]| action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 20|| information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information 22|| implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 24|| disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 26|| resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 27|| 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 2|| serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 3|) matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 4|| confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 5|| faith belief that 1t 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. 7 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10] Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 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. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 16|| good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 17|| County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 18]| Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 19] Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 22|| respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and

1 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 2|| protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 7|| supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 8|| declaration. 9 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 11] If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 12]) only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 14]) entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 15]| 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: Re-Marketing Group, Inc. v. Miller et al., United States 17|| District Court Civil Case Number 2:20-cv-09505-CAS-AFM. 18 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3. “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 23|| the Good Cause Statement. 24 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel and House Counsel (as well as their support 25|| staff). 26 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 27|| items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 28

1] “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES 2) ONLY.” 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 4|| of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 5|) among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 6|| or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 7 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 8|| pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 10 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: extremely sensitive CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items, the 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.

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

Re-Marketing Group, Inc. v. Mark Miller, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Re-Marketing Group, Inc. v. Mark Miller (Re-Marketing Group, Inc. v. Mark Miller) — 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)