Universal Dyeing and Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 25, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-03741
StatusUnknown

This text of Universal Dyeing and Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd. (Universal Dyeing and Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd.) 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
Universal Dyeing and Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-03741-FLA-RAO Document 41 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:196

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 Universal Dyeing & Printing, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03741-FLA-RAO 11 Plaintiff,

12 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 13 Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., et al., 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 As the parties have represented that discovery in this action is likely to 19 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which 20 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 21 prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, this Court enters the following 22 Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 23 or responses to discovery. The protection it affords from public disclosure and use 24 extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 25 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based primarily on Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s form protective order. The “attorneys’ eyes only” designation is based on 28 Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Chooljian’s form protective order. Case 2:22-cv-03741-FLA-RAO Document 41 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:197

1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve customer and pricing lists and valuable 3 development, commercial, financial, and/or proprietary information for which 4 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 5 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 6 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business and financial 7 information, information regarding confidential business practices, other 8 confidential development and commercial information (including information 9 implicating privacy rights of third parties), and information otherwise generally 10 unavailable to the public or which may be protected from disclosure under state or 11 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 12 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 13 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 14 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 15 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 16 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 17 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 18 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 19 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 20 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 21 should not be part of the public record of this case. 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 26 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 27 to file material under seal. 28 2 Case 2:22-cv-03741-FLA-RAO Document 41 Filed 01/25/23 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:198

1 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 2 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 3 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 4 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 5 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 6 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 7 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 8 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 9 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 10 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 11 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 12 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 13 otherwise protectable—constitute good 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 18 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 19 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 20 protection 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. 25 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 26 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document 27 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 28 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible 3 Case 2:22-cv-03741-FLA-RAO Document 41 Filed 01/25/23 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:199

1 2. DEFINITIONS 2 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 3 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 4 designation of information or items under this Order. 5 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 6 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 7 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 8 the Good Cause Statement. 9 2.4 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 10 Information or Items: extremely sensitive “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or 11 Items, the disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a 12 substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 13 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 their support staff). 15 2.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 17 “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES 18 ONLY.” 19 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 20 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 21 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 22 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.8 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 25 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 26 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

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)
Universal Dyeing and Printing, Inc. v. Zoetop Business Co., Ltd., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/universal-dyeing-and-printing-inc-v-zoetop-business-co-ltd-cacd-2023.