Terry Fabricant v. Net Element, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 13, 2019
Docket2:19-cv-02451
StatusUnknown

This text of Terry Fabricant v. Net Element, Inc. (Terry Fabricant v. Net Element, 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
Terry Fabricant v. Net Element, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 TERRY FABRICANT, individually ) Case No. 2:19-cv-02451-ODW(ASx) ) 11 and on behalf of all others similarly ) situated, ) PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 ) Plaintiff, ) 13 ) ) 14 v. ) ) 15 PAYMENTCLUB INC., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 22 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 23 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 24 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 25 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 26 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 27 28 1 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists 3 and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 4 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 6 warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 7 consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, 8 information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential 9 research, development, or commercial information (including information 10 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 11 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 12 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 13 common law. With respect to Defendant in particular, such confidential and 14 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 15 information regarding its business and sales tactics and practices, including its 16 leads lists, call metrics. and other materials and information that is valuable to 17 Defendant. Disclosure of such materials and information would create 18 19 substantial risk of serious financial or other injury that cannot be avoided by 20 less restrictive means. 21 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 23 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 24 the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 25 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 26 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 27 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 28 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 1 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 2 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why 3 it should not be part of the public record of this case. 4 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 5 PROCEDURE 6 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 7 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 8 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 9 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 10 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 11 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 12 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause 13 must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 14 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 15 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 16 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 17 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good 18 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 19 justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party 20 seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or 21 Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission 22 of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to 23 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, 26 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 27 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to 28 1 be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th 2 Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to 3 be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 4 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 5 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 6 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 8 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 9 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for 10 public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise 11 protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks 12 to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 13 why redaction is not feasible. 14 4. DEFINITIONS 15 4.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 16 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 17 designation of information or items under this Order. 18 19 4.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 20 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that 21 qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as 22 specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 23 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 24 as their support staff). 25 4.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 26 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery 27 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 1 4.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 2 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 3 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible 4 things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery. 5 4.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a 6 matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its 7 counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 4.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this 9 Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 10 other outside counsel. 11 4.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, 12 association or 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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Terry Fabricant v. Net Element, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/terry-fabricant-v-net-element-inc-cacd-2019.