UCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Research and Results Engineering, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 12, 2019
Docket8:18-cv-00905
StatusUnknown

This text of UCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Research and Results Engineering, Inc. (UCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Research and Results Engineering, 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
UCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Research and Results Engineering, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 UCC MANUFACTURING, a ) Case No.: 8:18-cv-00905 DOC (SSx) California limited liability ) 12 company ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ) ORDER

13 ) Plaintiff, ) [Discovery Document: Referred to 14 ) Magistrate Judge Suzanne H. Segal]

) 15 vs. ) ) 16 ) RESEARCH & RESULTS ) 17 ENGINEERING, INC., a Utah ) corporation; ROGER WATTERS, ) 18 an individual; and DOES 1 to 20, ) inclusive. ) 19 ) ) 20 Defendants. )

22 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between plaintiff UCC Manufacturing, 23 L LC (“UCCM”) and defendants Research & Results Engineering, Inc. and Roger 24 Watters (collectively, “Defendants”), the Pa rties to this action, through their respective 25 counsel, that this Stipulated Protective Orde r be entered by the Court pursuant to Rules 26 26(c) and 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Civ il Procedure to protect certain confidential 27 information that may be produced during dis covery and trial in this action. As between 28 1 the Parties to this Stipulation, they agree to be bound by its terms as of the time that the 2 Stipulation is executed by counsel. 3 4 1. Good Cause Statement

5 The Parties assert good cause exists for the issuance of the requested protective 6 order as the claims raised in this matter relate to the business and financial aspects of the 7 manufacturing business of Defendants and is necessary to protect the business and 8 financial privacy of Defendants and trade secrets of Defendants’ customers from 9 disclosure through discovery or by subpoena. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 10 Procedure 26(c)(1), the court may issue a protective order to “[a]any party or any person 11 from whom discovery is sought” to prevent “annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or 12 undue burden or expense.” More specifically, the court may protect certain business- 13 related materials, including trade secrets and other commercially sensitive information 14 from disclosure. FRCP 26(c)(1)(G). A trade secret is “any information that can be used 15 in the operation of a business or other enterprise and is sufficiently valuable and secret 16 to afford an actual or potential economic advantage over others.” Orthofix, Inc. v. 17 Hunter, 630 F. App’x 566, 567 (6th Cir. 2015) (quotation omitted). 18 In the present case, UCCM has issued a subpoena on Squatty Potty, LLC, which 19 is not a party to this case. UCCM seeks “contracts, agreements, invoices, payments, 20 purchase order(s), requests for proposals, and emails/communications . . . with or 21 relating to [Defendants].” The documents in Squatty Potty’s possession which are 22 responsive to the subpoena contain the pricing information and negotiations between 23 Squatty Potty and one of its manufacturers, Defendant Research & Results Engineering, 24 Inc. (“R&R”). The unit cost for Squatty Potty’s products that it has paid R&R are 25 protectable as trade secrets because those costs give Squatty Potty an economic 26 advantage over competitors. If Squatty Potty’s manufacturing costs are not protected, 27 competitors will likely use that information to undercut Squatty Potty’s retail prices, 28 1 which would thereby likely reduce Squatty Potty’s place as a leader in the toilet stool 2 industry. Additionally, should other manufacturers gain knowledge of what Squatty 3 Potty is currently paying R&R, Squatty Potty’s ability to effectively negotiate 4 prospective prices with those manufacturers would be significantly damaged. Squatty 5 Potty negotiates competitive manufacturing costs in order to provide consumers with 6 affordable goods manufactured in the United States. Further, Squatty Potty has always 7 treated this pricing information as a trade secret, requiring its manufacturing partners to 8 sign non-disclosure agreements regarding the same. 9 Based on the foregoing, there is good cause in this case for the Court to issue a 10 protective regarding Squatty Potty’s manufacturing costs to maintain the same as a trade 11 secret. 12 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: The above-captioned pending federal lawsuit and consolidated 13 actions. 14 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 15 information or items under this Order. 16 2.3 “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 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 21 support staff). 22 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 23 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 24 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 25 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among 26 other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated 27 in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 28 1 2.7 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 2.8 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 counsel. 6 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 7 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 8 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to 9 this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared 10 in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared 11 on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 12 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 13 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 14 support staffs). 15 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 16 Discovery Material in this Action. 17 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support 18 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 19 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and 20 their employees and subcontractors. 21 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated 22 as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 24 from a Producing Party. 25 3. SCOPE 26 The protections conferred by this Stip ulation and Order cover not only Protected 27 Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 28 Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts , summaries, or compilations of Protected 1 Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their 2 Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. 3 Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of the trial 4 judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 5 4. DURATION Even after final disposition of this litigation, the confidentiality obligations 6 imposed by this Order shall remain in effect until a Designating Party agrees otherwise 7 in writing or a court order otherwise directs.

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

Related

Orthofix, Inc. v. Eric Hunter
630 F. App'x 566 (Sixth Circuit, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
UCC Manufacturing, LLC v. Research and Results Engineering, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ucc-manufacturing-llc-v-research-and-results-engineering-inc-cacd-2019.