United States v. US GC Investment LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 5, 2024
Docket2:22-cv-02182
StatusUnknown

This text of United States v. US GC Investment LLC (United States v. US GC Investment LLC) 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
United States v. US GC Investment LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

2 3 4 5

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. AZIZA GEORGIAN, Case No. 2:22-cv-2182 AB-PDx 10

Plaintiffs, 11 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER1 12

13 US GC INVESTMENT LP et al.,

Defendants. 14

15 16 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 17 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 18 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 19 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 20 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 21 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 22 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 23 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 24 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 25 applicable legal principles. 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve commercial, financial, and/or proprietary 3 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 4 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 5 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential 6 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 7 practices, or other commercial information (including information implicating 8 privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the 9 public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 10 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 11 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 12 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 13 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 14 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 15 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 16 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 17 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 18 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 19 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 20 should not be part of the public record of this case. 21 22 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 23 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 24 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 25 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 26 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 27 file material under seal. 1 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 2 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 3 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 4 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 5 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 6 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 7 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 8 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 9 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or CONFIDENTIAL- 10 COUNSELS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the submission of competent 11 evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 12 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 13 cause. 14 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 15 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 16 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 17 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 18 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 19 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 20 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 21 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 22 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 23 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 24 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 25 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 26 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 27 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 1 2 2. DEFINITIONS 3 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit 4 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 5 of information or items under this Order. 6 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL-COUNSELS’ EYES 7 ONLY” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored 8 or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 9 Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 10 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 11 their support staff). 12 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 13 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 14 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 15 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 16 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 17 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 18 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 19 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 20 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 21 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 22 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 23 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 24 counsel. 25 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 26 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 27 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 1 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which 2 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 3 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 4 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 5 support staffs). 6 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 7 Discovery Material in 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)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
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)
United States v. US GC Investment LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-us-gc-investment-llc-cacd-2024.