William Crabtree v. Robert Kirkman

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 12, 2022·No. 2:22-cv-00180·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-00180-MEMF-AFM Document 28 Filed 09/12/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:160

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11 WILLIAM CRABTREE, Case No. 2:22-cv-00180-MEMF (AFMx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 vs. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 ORDER ROBERT KIRKMAN, an individual; 15 ROBERT KIRKMAN, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company, 16 and DOES 1-10, inclusive., 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 24 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 25 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 26 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 27 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 28 Case 2:22-cv-00180-MEMF-AFM Document 28 Filed 09/12/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:161

1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 3 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 4 5 This action, which concerns claims of breach of contract, fraud, accounting, 6 and declaratory relief regarding ownership of a comic book and graphic novel 7 series, is likely to involve valuable financial and proprietary information for which 8 special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 9 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 10 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 11 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 12 confidential creative or commercial information that is otherwise generally 13 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 14 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 15 law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 16 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 17 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the 18 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for 19 and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 20 serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 21 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as 22 confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good 23 faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and 24 there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 25

26 27 28 -2- Case 2:22-cv-00180-MEMF-AFM Document 28 Filed 09/12/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:162

1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 2 SEAL 3 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 4 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 5 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 6 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 7 to file material under seal. 8 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 11 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 12 and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 13 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 14 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 15 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 16 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 17 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 18 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 19 does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 20 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, 21 privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 23 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 24 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 25 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 26 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 27 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 28 -3- Case 2:22-cv-00180-MEMF-AFM Document 28 Filed 09/12/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:163

1 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 2 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 3 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 4 declaration. 5 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 6 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 7 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 8 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 9 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 10 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 11 12 2. DEFINITIONS 13 2.1 Action: William Crabtree v. Robert Kirkman, an individual, Robert 14 Kirkman, LLC, a Kentucky limited liability company, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 15 USDC Case No. 2:22-cv-00180-JFW (AFM) 16 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 18 designation of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 20 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 21 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 22 the Good Cause Statement. 23 24 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 25 their support staff). 26 27 28 -4- Case 2:22-cv-00180-MEMF-AFM Document 28 Filed 09/12/22 Page 5 of 17 Page ID #:164

1 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 2 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 3 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 5 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 6 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 7 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 8 9 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 10 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 11 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 12 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 13 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 14 counsel.

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

William Crabtree v. Robert Kirkman, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

William Crabtree v. Robert Kirkman (William Crabtree v. Robert Kirkman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)