Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 21, 2025·No. 2:23-cv-07624·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 11 STEPHEN ROZZO, an individual, Case No.: 2:23-cv-07624-MEMF-AJR

12 Plaintiff, [Assigned to District Judge the Honorable Maame Ewusi-Mensah 13 vs. Frimpong; and Magistrate Judge the Honorable A. Joel Richlin] INDUSTRIES, INC., a Delaware [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 15 corporation; and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, PROTECTIVE ORDER

16 Defendants. Compl. Filed: August 9, 2023 17 Removed: September 13, 2023 FAC Filed: October 11, 2023 18

19 20

21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. 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 disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 6 Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 7 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection 8 it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items 9 that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 Defendant Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (“Sun”). Discovery in this action 12 is likely to reveal trade secrets, confidential and proprietary information relating to the 13 confidential business practices and policies of Sun, and other valuable research, 14 development, commercial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special 15 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution 16 of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 17 consist of, among other things, information regarding confidential business practices, 18 or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 19 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 20 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 21 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 22 Disclosure of this information would result in the dissemination of 23 confidential/proprietary information developed and used internally by Sun only, 24 resulting in personal and/or financial harm to Sun and/or third parties. Accordingly, to 25 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 26 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are 27 entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 28 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address 1 their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 2 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 3 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing 4 be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 5 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 6 record of this case. 7 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 8 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 9 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 10 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 11 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 12 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 13 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 14 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. 15 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 16 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 17 Electrics, 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 otherwise 24 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 relief 27 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 28 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 1 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party 2 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 3 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 4 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 6 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 7 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 8 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 9 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 10 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 4. DEFINITIONS 12 4.1 Action: the instant lawsuit entitled Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical 13 Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-07624. 14 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 15 of information or items under this Order. 16 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 17 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 19 Statement. 20 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 21 support staff). 22 4.5 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 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 26 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 27 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 28 in disclosures or responses to discovery. 1 4.7 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 an 3 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 4.8 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 4.9 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

Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, 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)