Sushi Nozawa, LLC v. The HRB Experience, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 24, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-07653·Unknown

Opinion

1 ROBERT L. WALLAN (SBN 126480) robert.wallan@pillsburylaw.com 2 CAROLYN S. TOTO (SBN 233825) 3 carolyn.toto@pillsburylaw.com MICHAEL R. KREINER (SBN 316625) 4 michael.kreiner@pillsburylaw.com 5 PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 6 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406 7 Telephone: 213.488.7100 Facsimile: 213.629.1033 8

9 Attorneys for Plaintiff SUSHI NOZAWA, LLC 10

11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 WESTERN DIVISION 14

15 SUSHI NOZAWA, LLC, a Delaware Case No. 2:19-cv-07653 ODW (RAOx) 16 limited liability company, [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 17 Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER 18 vs. 19 The HRB Experience, LLC, a California Judge: Honorable Otis D. Wright, II 20 liability company, Magistrate: Hon. Rozella A. Oliver 21 Defendant. Discovery Document: Referred to 22 Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver 23 24

25 26 27 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 disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting 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 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 The Parties expect that discovery in this case will include commercially sensitive 12 information, such as sales figures, expenses, pricing, marketing plans, future 13 commercial plans, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 14 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 15 commercial information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 16 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 17 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. The Parties believe they would be 18 harmed if this information was publicly disclosed. Accordingly, to expedite the flow 19 of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 20 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 21 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 22 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 23 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 24 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will 25 not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 26 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 27 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 4 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 5 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 6 material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 12 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 13 cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 14 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 15 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 16 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the 17 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought 18 to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— 19 constitute good cause. 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 Pintos 23 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 24 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 25 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 26 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 27 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file 1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 2 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 3 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 4 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 5 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 6 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 2. DEFINITIONS 8 2.1 Action: Sushi Nozawa, LLC v. The HRB Experience, LLC, Case No. 2:19- 9 cv-07653 ODW (RAOx). 10 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 11 information or items under this Order. 12 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how 13 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 15 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 16 support staff). 17 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 18 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 19 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 20 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of 21 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 22 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 23 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 24 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 25 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an 26 expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 27 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 1 the disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 2 serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 3 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 4 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 5 counsel. 6 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 7 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

Sushi Nozawa, LLC v. The HRB Experience, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Sushi Nozawa, LLC v. The HRB Experience, LLC (Sushi Nozawa, LLC v. The HRB Experience, LLC) — 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)