Uptime Energy Inc. v. Casey's Retail Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 10, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-02965
StatusUnknown

This text of Uptime Energy Inc. v. Casey's Retail Company (Uptime Energy Inc. v. Casey's Retail Company) 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
Uptime Energy Inc. v. Casey's Retail Company, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-02965-MEMF-PD Document 31 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:207

1 JENNIFER LEE TAYLOR (CA SBN 161368) JTaylor@mofo.com 2 JOYCE LIOU (CA SBN 277720) JLiou@mofo.com 3 EOIN CONNOLLY (CA SBN 300373) EConnolly@mofo.com 4 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP 425 Market Street 5 San Francisco, CA 94105-2482 Telephone: 415.268.7000 6 Facsimile: 415.268.7522 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff UPTIME ENERGY INC. 8

9 SCOTT P. SHAW (CA SBN 223592) SShaw@MerchantGould.com 10 ELIZABETH A. LINFORD (CA SBN 204716) ELinford@MerchantGould.com 11 MERCHANT & GOULD P.C. 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 935 12 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (303) 357-1181 13 Facsimile: (612) 332-9081 14 Attorneys for Defendant CASEY’S RETAIL COMPANY 15

16 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 18 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 19 Uptime Energy Inc. 20 Case No. 2:22-cv-02965-MEMF-PD

21 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 22 ORDER1 v. 23 Trial Date: Oct 16, 2023 Casey’s Retail Company 24

25 Defendant.

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 28 order provided under Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue’s Procedures. Case 2:22-cv-02965-MEMF-PD Document 31 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:208

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 5 warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter 6 the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 7 does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and 8 that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 9 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 10 applicable legal principles. 11 12 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 13 This action involving claims of trademark and trade dress infringement is 14 likely to involve the production of documents and information containing sensitive 15 business information including expansion plans, trade secrets, customer and pricing 16 lists, and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical 17 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure 18 and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 19 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 20 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 21 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 22 commercial information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, 23 or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 24 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite 25 the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 26 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 27 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 28 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 2 Case 2:22-cv-02965-MEMF-PD Document 31 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:209

1 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 2 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 3 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 4 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 5 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 6 should not be part of the public record of this case. 7 8 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 11 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and 12 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to 13 file material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 15 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 16 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 17 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 18 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 19 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 20 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 21 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 22 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 23 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 24 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 25 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 26 protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 28 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 3 Case 2:22-cv-02965-MEMF-PD Document 31 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:210

1 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 2 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 3 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 4 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection 5 must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 6 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 7 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 9 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 11 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 12 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 13 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 15 2. DEFINITIONS 16 2.1 Action: This pending federal law suit, Uptime Energy Inc. v. 17 Casey’s Retail Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-02965-MEMF-PD. 18 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges 19 the designation of information or items under this Order. 20 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 21 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 22 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the 23 Good Cause Statement. 24 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 25 their support staff).

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)
Uptime Energy Inc. v. Casey's Retail Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/uptime-energy-inc-v-caseys-retail-company-cacd-2023.