Snow Joe, LLC v. Linemart Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 16, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-00587·Unknown

Opinion

1 JOHNSON & PHAM, LLP Christopher D. Johnson, SBN: 222698 2 E-mail: cjohnson@johnsonpham.com Christopher Q. Pham, SBN: 206697 3 E-mail: cpham@johnsonpham.com Marcus F. Chaney, SBN: 245227 4 E-mail: mchaney@johnsonpham.com 6355 Topanga Canyon Boulevard, Suite 326 5 Woodland Hills, California 91367 Telephone: (818) 888-7540 6 Facsimile: (818) 888-7544 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff SNOW JOE, LLC 8 Alan M. Kindred, SBN 135145 9 E-mail: akindred@leechtishman.com Ivan Posey, SBN 196386 10 E-mail: iposey@leechtishman.com LEECH TISHMAN FUSCALDO & 11 LAMPL, INC., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 200 South Los Robles Avenue, Suite 300 12 Pasadena, CA 91101 Phone: (626) 796-4000 13 Fax: (626) 795-6321 14 Attorneys for Defendants Linemart, Inc., Linemart NJ, Inc., Shenzhen Sailvan Network Technology Ltd. and 15 Shenzhen Sailvan Ecommerce Co., Ltd. 16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 SNOW JOE, LLC, 20 Case No.: 2:20-cv-00587 RSWL Plaintiff, (RAOx) 21 v. 22 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE LINEMART INC., et al. ORDER1 23 Defendants. 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 1 1. INTRODUCTION 2 A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 6 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 7 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 8 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 9 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 10 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 11 under the applicable legal principles. 12 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 14 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 15 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 16 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 17 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 18 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 19 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 20 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 21 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 22 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 23 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 24 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 25 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 26 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 27 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 1 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 2 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 3 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 4 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 5 record of this case. 6 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 9 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 10 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 11 to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 14 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 15 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 16 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 17 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 18 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 19 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 20 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 21 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 22 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 23 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 24 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 25 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 26 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 27 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 1 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 2 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 3 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 4 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 5 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 6 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 7 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 8 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 9 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 10 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 11 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 15 designation of information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 17 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 18 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 19 the Good Cause Statement. 20 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 21 their support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 24 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 25 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 26 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 27 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 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 or 8 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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

Snow Joe, LLC v. Linemart Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Snow Joe, LLC v. Linemart Inc. (Snow Joe, LLC v. Linemart Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)