Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 3, 2025
Docket2:22-cv-00047
StatusUnknown

This text of Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, 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
Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 1 Kevin Y. Teruya (Bar No. 235916) kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com 2 Adam B. Wolfson (Bar No. 262125) adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com 3 William R. Sears (Bar No. 330888) willsears@quinnemanuel.com 4 Brantley I. Pepperman (Bar No. 322057) brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com 5 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 6 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 Facsimile: (213) 443-3100 7 KELLER POSTMAN LLC 8 Warren D. Postman (Bar No. 33069) wdp@kellerpostman.com 9 1101 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20036 10 Telephone: (202) 918-1123

11 INTERIM CO-LEAD CLASS COUNSEL

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 Skot Heckman, Luis Ponce, Jeanene Case No. CV 22-00047-GW-GJSx Popp, and Jacob Roberts, on behalf of 17 themselves and all those similarly situated, 18 STIPULATED AMENDED Plaintiffs, PROTECTIVE ORDER 19 vs. 20 Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., and 21 Ticketmaster L.L.C.,

22 Defendants.

24 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 A. Purposes and Limitations 26 Discovery in this Action is likely to involve production of confidential, 27 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 1 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 2 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 3 following Stipulated Amended Protective Order (the “Order”). Defendants Live 4 Nation Entertainment, Inc. and Ticketmaster L.L.C. stipulate to the specific 5 protections for information of Non-Party Competitors (as defined in Section 2.14, 6 below) in this Order pursuant to the Court’s orders at ECF Nos. 368 and 370, and for 7 no other reason. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 8 responses to discovery, and the protection it affords from public disclosure and use 9 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 10 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. Good Cause Statement 12 This Action is likely to involve the production and exchange of confidential, 13 sensitive information that could cause business, competitive, and personal harm if 14 disclosed publicly or, without restrictions, between the parties or between the parties 15 and non-parties. This Action is also likely to involve trade secrets, operating plans, 16 market analyses, nonpublic contracts, negotiating positions and business negotiation 17 strategies, and financial information that if it were to become public could provide 18 confidential, competitively sensitive information to the market and competitors and 19 could put the producing party at a competitive disadvantage. Accordingly, to expedite 20 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 21 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 22 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 23 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 24 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective 25 order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 26 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing 27 be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 1 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of 2 the public record of this case. 3 C. Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 6 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 7 be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 8 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 9 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 10 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 11 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 12 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 13 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 14 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 15 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 16 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 17 of Discovery Material as Protected Material without submitting competent evidence 18 by declaration showing that the material is in fact confidential, privileged, or 19 otherwise protectable, does not establish good cause to file under seal. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 22 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 23 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 24 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal 25 in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 26 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 27 1 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 2 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 6 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 7 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 8 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: Skot Heckman, et al. v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., et al., 11 Case No. 2:22-cv-00047-GW-GJS (C.D. Cal.). 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 13 designation of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: trade secrets or other 15 confidential research, development, or commercially sensitive information 16 (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) pursuant to Federal Rule of 17 Civil Procedure 26(c), or any document, transcript, or other material containing such 18 information that has not been published or otherwise made publicly available. 19 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL – NON-PARTY COMPETITOR” Information 20 or Items: Confidential Information that has been designated by a Non-Party 21 Competitor. 22 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 23 their support staff). 24 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information 25 or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as Protected 26 Material. 27 1 2.7 Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 2 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 3 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in 4 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Skot Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/skot-heckman-v-live-nation-entertainment-inc-cacd-2025.