Synergy Hematology-Oncology Medical Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 13, 2022
Docket2:22-cv-01560
StatusUnknown

This text of Synergy Hematology-Oncology Medical Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (Synergy Hematology-Oncology Medical Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 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
Synergy Hematology-Oncology Medical Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01560-SPG-JEM Document 29 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:174

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 SYNERGY HEMATOLOGY- Case No.: 2:22-cv-01560 SPG (JEMx) 11 ONCOLOGY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., a California 12 medical corporation, STIPULATED [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 Plaintiff, District Judge: Hon. Sherilyn P. Garnett 14 v. Courtroom: 5C Mag. Judge: Hon. John E. 15 ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., a McDermott Delaware corporation, and Does 1 to 10, Courtroom: 640 16 inclusive, Date Filed: March 8, 2022

17 Defendant. DISCOVERY MATTER

18 ABBOTT LABORATORIES INC., a 19 Delaware corporation, and Does 1 to 10, inclusive, 20 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 SYNERGY HEMATOLOGY- 23 ONCOLOGY MEDICAL ASSOCIATES, INC., a California 24 medical corporation,

25 Counterclaim Defendant.

27 28 {02388829} Case 2:22-cv-01560-SPG-JEM Document 29 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:175

1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve the production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, pricing information, and other 13 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 15 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, and other confidential research, development, or 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 20 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 21 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 22 court rules, case decisions, or common law. 23 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 24 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 25 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 26 parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for 27 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 28 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this {02388829} 2 2:22-cv-01560 JFW (JEMx) Case 2:22-cv-01560-SPG-JEM Document 29 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:176

1 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 2 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 3 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 4 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. The 5 parties will be prejudiced and harmed should their confidential business, financial, 6 research, development, and/or commercial information or trade secrets be publicly 7 disclosed, which would allow the parties’ competitors access to such confidential 8 information. 9 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF FILING UNDER SEAL PROCEDURE 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Paragraph 13.3, below, that 11 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file Confidential 12 Information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 and the Court’s Standing Order set 13 forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 14 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a 15 strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 16 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must 17 be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of 18 Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 19 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 20 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 21 cause showing). Further, a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 22 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification must be made with respect 23 to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 24 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or 25 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the 26 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 27 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 28 protectable—constitute good cause. {02388829} 3 2:22-cv-01560 JFW (JEMx) Case 2:22-cv-01560-SPG-JEM Document 29 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:177

1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 2 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 3 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 4 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 5 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 6 or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 7 reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 8 order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 9 under seal must be provided by declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable 11 in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be 12 redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, 13 omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the 14 document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in 15 their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16 4. DEFINITIONS 17 4.1 “Action”: the above-captioned federal lawsuit. 18 4.2 “Challenging Party”: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 19 designation of information or items under this Order. 20 4.3 “Confidential Information”: information (regardless of how it is 21 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 22 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 23 Statement, which is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – 24 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. 25 4.4 “Counsel”: Outside Counsel of Record and In-House Counsel (as well 26 as their support staff). 27 28 {02388829} 4 2:22-cv-01560 JFW (JEMx) Case 2:22-cv-01560-SPG-JEM Document 29 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:178

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
United States v. Patrisso
20 F.R.D. 576 (S.D. New York, 1957)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Synergy Hematology-Oncology Medical Associates, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/synergy-hematology-oncology-medical-associates-inc-v-abbott-cacd-2022.