Veribi, LLC v. Compass Mining Inc

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 17, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-04537·Unknown

Opinion

Alan E. Engle (SBN 224779) GUNDZIK GUNDZIK HEEGER LLP alan.engle@meenlegal.com Aaron C. Gundzik (State Bar No. 132137) MEADOR & ENGLE Aaron.gundzik@gghllp.com 1115 Seal Way 14011 Ventura Blvd, Suite 206E Seal Beach, CA 90740 Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Telephone: (310) 428-6985 Telephone: 818.290.7461 Facsimile: (714) 386-5368 Facsimile: 818.918.2316 Attorneys for Plaintiff, Veribi, LLC ARMSTRONG TEASDALE LLP Michael A. Gehret (State Bar No. 247869) Peter H. Donaldson (pro hac vice) Telephone: 801.401.1600 Facsimile: 314.621.5065 Attorneys for Defendant, Compass Mining, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA VERIBI, LLC, a Nevada limited Case No.: 2:22-CV-04537-MEMF-JPR liability company, Hon. Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong Plaintiff, Magistrate: Hon. Jean P. Rosenbluth v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE COMPASS MINING, INC., a ORDER GOVERNING Delaware corporation, CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION Defendant. 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 below, that this Order does not entitle them to file Confidential Information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT On September 28, 2023, the Court held a hearing after briefing and found that good cause exists for entry of a Stipulated Protective Order in this matter. The parties therefore submit this Proposed Joint Protective Order pursuant to the Court’s September 23, 2023 Order. This dispute is between Plaintiff Veribi, LLC (“Veribi’”’) and Defendant Compass Mining, Inc. (“Compass”). The dispute involves Compass’s termination of its dealings with a foreign hosting services provider BitRiver AG (“BitRiver’”) who has facilities in Russia, following the addition of BitRiver to the U.S. Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control’s Specially Designated Nationals list. The dispute in this case and related discovery may implicate Compass’s commercially sensitive information, as well as its customers’ confidential information, possibly including, Compass contends, the following: e The specific addresses of Compass’s hosting locations; e The specific terms of Compass’s hosting agreements with hosting centers, including contractual hosting rates; e Compass customers’ personally identifying information, including names, addresses, and financial information; Case No. 2:22-CV-04537-MEMF-JPR ° [PROPOSED] STIP. PROTECTIVE ORDER

e Serial numbers and MAC addresses of Compass customers’ cryptocurrency miners; e Financial records and information, including bank account numbers for both Compass and its customers; and e Compass’s private, strategic business discussions and negotiation tactics with hosting providers. (a) Potential harm should certain relevant materials be disclosed publicly While Compass does not believe all of the information listed above is relevant, discoverable, or admissible in this case, and accordingly reserves all rights, if the information listed above were to be disclosed publicly, it might impose significant, particularized harm on Compass and its customers. The risks from disclosure provide good cause for a protective order with a “CONFIDENTIAL” designation. See, e.g., DeHate v. Lowe’s Home Centers, LLC, 2020 WL 7084551, at *4(C.D. Cal. Oct. 8, 2020) (granting protective order to prevent public disclosure of surveillance videos, finding good cause because “the public could exploit that information to commit theft or other undesirable acts”); Estate of Sanchez v. County of Stanislaus, 2019 WL 1959579 (E.D. Cal. May 2, 2019) (noting discovery rules must balance the potential for abuse, including “damage to the reputation and privacy of litigants and third parties”). (b) Potential harm should certain relevant materials be disclosed publicly or to the parties in this Action Some of the information listed above is nonpublic and extremely commercially sensitive and might impose harm if disclosed to the public or to Veribi. In light of these risks, there is good cause for a protective order with an attorneys’ eyes only provision. See, e.g., Kaseberg v. Conaco, LLC, 2016 WL 3997600 (S.D. Cal. July 26, 2016) (attorneys’ eyes only provision appropriate to prevent disclosure of licensing fees, finding that good cause exists because Case No. 2:22-CV-04537-MEMF-JPR ° [PROPOSED] STIP. PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

Veribi, LLC v. Compass Mining Inc, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Veribi, LLC v. Compass Mining Inc (Veribi, LLC v. Compass Mining Inc) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.