Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 9, 2019·No. 2:18-cv-06055·Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 5 6 7 11 12 TURO INC., Case No. 2:18-CV-6055-CAS-GJS 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 v. ORDER1

16 Defendant. 17

18 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 23 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 24 following Stipulated Protective Order (hereafter, “Order,” “Protective Order,” or 25 “Stipulated Protective Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does not 26 confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 27 1 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 2 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 3 legal principles. 5 This action is likely to involve confidential and highly confidential trade 6 secrets, customer and pricing lists, financial and investor statements, Board 7 presentations and materials, and private individual location and vehicle reservation 8 information, among other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 9 technical, and/or proprietary information, for which special protection from public 10 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is 11 warranted. As this case involves a party with a technology platform engaged in 12 proprietary business development and ongoing confidential investor valuations and 13 relationships, such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, 14 among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 15 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 16 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 17 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 18 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 19 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 20 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality 21 of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 22 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 23 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 24 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 25 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 26 will not be designated as confidential or highly confidential for tactical reasons and 27 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 1 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 2 part of the public record of this case. 3 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential or highly 6 confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures 7 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 8 permission from the court to file material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 11 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 12 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 13 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 14 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 15 cause showing). A specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 16 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 17 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 18 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY 19 CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by 20 declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 21 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 23 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 24 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 25 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 26 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 27 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 1 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 2 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 6 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 7 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 8 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: this pending lawsuit, Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, Case No. 11 2:18-CV-6055-CAS-GJS. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 13 of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good Cause 17 Statement. 18 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 19 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things involving 20 extremely sensitive CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items, disclosure of which to 21 another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could 22 not be avoided by less restrictive means and that qualify for protection under Federal 23 Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 24 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 25 support staff). 26 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 27 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 1 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 2 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 3 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 4 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 6 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 7 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 8 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action.

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

Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (Turo Inc. v. City of Los Angeles) — 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)