YellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 17, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-00803·Unknown

Opinion

1 Richard J. Idell, Esq. (SBN 069033) Ory Sandel, Esq. (SBN 233204) 2 DICKENSON PEATMAN & FOGARTY P.C. 3 1455 First Street, Suite 301 Napa, CA 94559 4 Telephone: (707) 261-7000 Facsimile: (707) 255-6876 5 Email: ridell@dpf-law.com 6 osandel@dpf-law.com Attorneys for Defendants Dashgo, Inc., Audiomicro, 7 Inc. d.b.a. Adrev, Benjamin Patterson and Noah Becker 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA FRESNO DIVISION 11 YELLOWCAKE, INC., a California CASE NO. 1:21-cv-00803-AWI-BAM 12 corporation, [PROPOSED] TWO-TIER PROTECTIVE 13 Plaintiff, ORDER 14 v. 15 DASHGO, INC., a Delaware corporation; and AUDIOMICRO, INC. d/b/a ADREV, a 16 Delaware corporation, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 On March 25, 2022, Defendants Dashgo, Inc. (“Dashgo”) and AudioMicro, Inc. d/b/a 2 Adrev (“Adrev”) (collectively, “Defendants”) moved the Court for entry of a two-tier protective 3 order. Plaintiff Yellowcake, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Yellowcake”) opposed Defendants’ motion. By 4 Order dated July 20, 2022, Defendants’ motion was granted, and the Court now enters this 5 Protective Order on that basis. 6 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 7 8 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 9 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 10 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 11 This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 12 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 13 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 14 principles. As set forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not automatically 15 entitle any Party to file confidential information under seal. 16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 18 information or items under this Order. 19 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 20 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 21 of Civil Procedure 26(c). 22 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 23 well as their support staff). 24 2.4 Designated House Counsel: House Counsel who seek access to “HIGHLY 25 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information in this matter. 26 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that 27 it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY 28 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”. 1 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 2 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 3 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 4 responses to discovery in this matter. 5 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 6 the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or 7 as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party’s 8 competitor, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party 9 or of a Party’s competitor. 10 2.8 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or 11 Items: extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another 12 Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of significant financial or competitive harm 13 that could not be avoided by less restrictive means and which falls into a category permitted to 14 be so designated under the Court’s July 21, 2022 Order (Docket No. 78) and any subsequent 15 related Court Orders. The Court’s July 21, 2022 Order discusses designations relating to six 16 categories of information: (1) agreements with Digital Service Providers; (2) agreements with 17 third party licensors; (3) client list and contacts; (4) internal procedures and processes; (5) 18 financial information; and (6) proprietary software and systems developed. The following 19 categories may be designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”: 20 (1) client list and contacts; (2) internal procedures and processes; and (3) proprietary software 21 and systems developed. The Court has yet to determine whether or not the category of 22 agreements with Digital Service Providers may be designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 23 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pending its review of the three representative contracts 24 25 Defendants have delivered to the Court for in camera review. The category of agreements with 26 third party licensors may be redacted as to licensor identification and financial terms, subject to a 27 standard privilege log, and may not be designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – 28 ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” but may be designated “CONFIDENTIAL”. The category of financial information may be designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES 1 ONLY” other than as to “financial information directly related to the royalty or revenue of the 2 alleged Copyrighted Works and Foreign Works”, which may not be designated “HIGHLY 3 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” but may be designated “CONFIDENTIAL”. 4 Further with regard to the category of “financial information”, to the extent that Defendants are 5 asked to produce documents related to “business operations, performance and profitability”, such 6 documents may be designated “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 7 except as such documents relates to the “list” of identifiable copyrighted works, which 8 documents may be marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and which may be redacted as to sections of 9 documents protected by identified privileges set forth on a privilege log. 10 2.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House 11 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 12 2.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 13 entity not named as a Party to this action. 14 2.11 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 15 action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this 16 action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of 17 that party. 18 2.13 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 19 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 20 2.14 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 21 Material in this action. 22 2.15 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services 23 (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 24 25 organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and 26 subcontractors. 27 2.16 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as 28 “CONFIDENTIAL,” or as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 1 2.17 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a 2 Producing Party. 3 3. SCOPE 4 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined 5 above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, 6 excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, 7 conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

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

YellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

YellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc. (YellowCake, Inc. v. DashGo, Inc.) — 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)