Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 18, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-07339·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Document 34 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 25 Page IDF #IL:1E6D9 CLERK, U.S. DISTRICTCOURT 0011//1188//22002222 1 AMY JANE LONGO (Cal. Bar No. 198304) CENTRAL DISTRICTOF CALIFORNIA Email: longoa@sec.gov BY: ____jj _mm ______________ DEPUTY 2 JANET RICH WEISSMAN (Cal. Bar No. 137023) 3 Email: weissmanj@sec.gov 4 Attorneys for Plaintiff 5 Securities and Exchange Commission Michele Wein Layne, Regional Director 6 Ansu N. Banerjee, Associate Regional Director 7 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90071 8 Telephone: (323) 965-3998 9 Facsimile: (213) 443-1904 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 Western Division 14 15 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS COMMISSION, 16 Plaintiff, AMENDED STIPULATED 17 PROTECTIVE ORDER1 18 vs. 19 SHE BEVERAGE COMPANY, INC., LUPE L. ROSE, SONJA F. SHELBY 20 AND KATHERINE E. DIRDEN, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 This Amended Stipulated Protective Order cures the deficiencies listed in the “Notice to Filer of 28 Deficiencies in Electronically Filed Documents.” (Dkt. No. 31) AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Case 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Document 34 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 25 Page ID #:170

1 1. A. PURPOSES 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 be 5 warranted. Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) takes the position 6 that when considering whether good cause for a protective order under Rule 26(c) 7 exists, courts must weigh the presumption of openness of litigation materials against 8 the asserted right of confidentiality. When the government is a party to the litigation, 9 those matters are of significant public concern which may often outweigh any 10 competing interest in confidentiality. Nevertheless, to facilitate the exchange of 11 information, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 12 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 13 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 14 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 15 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 16 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 17 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 18 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 19 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 20 the court to file material under seal. 21 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 22 This action is likely to involve commercial and/or financial information for 23 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 24 than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 25 materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or 26 financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 27 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 28 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 1 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Case 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Document 34 Filed 01/18/22 Page 3 of 25 Page ID #:171

1 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 2 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 3 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 4 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 5 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 6 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 7 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 8 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 9 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 10 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 11 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 12 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 13 case. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Action: SEC v SHE Beverage, Inc. et al., Case No. Case No. 2:21-cv- 16 07339-CAS-AS. 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 18 information or items under this Order. 19 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 20 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 21 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above 22 in the Good Cause Statement. 23 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 24 support staff). 25 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 26 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 27 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Case 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Document 34 Filed 01/18/22 Page 4 of 25 Page ID #:172

1 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained 2 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 3 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this 4 matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 7 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 9 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other 10 outside counsel. 11 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 12 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 13 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 14 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 15 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 16 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 17 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 18 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and 19 their support staffs). 20 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 21 Discovery Material in this Action. 22 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 23 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 24 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or 25 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 26 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 27 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material AMENDED STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 3 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Case 2:21-cv-07339-CAS-AS Document 34 Filed 01/18/22 Page 5 of 25 Page ID #:173

1 from a Producing Party. 2 3.

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

Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company, Inc. (Securities and Exchange Commission v. SHE Beverage Company, Inc.) — 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)