UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC. v. RINEHART
Case No. 8:18-cv-01048.
UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. KRISTOPHER RINEHART, MD, an individual; BRENT MURAKAMI, an individual; SOUTH BAY SELF DEFENSE STUDIOS, LLC, a California limited liability company; LOS ANGELES STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, LLC, a California limited liability company; SB NINJA, LLC, a California limited liability company; and DOES 1-10, inclusive Defendants. KRISTOPHER RINEHART, MD; BRENT MURAKAMI; SOUTH BAY SELF DEFENSE STUDIOS LLC; LOS ANGELES STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, LLC; ROLLING HILLS USSD, LLC, and S.B. NINJA, LLC., Counterclaimants, v. UNITED STUDIOS OF SELF DEFENSE, INC., a California corporation, CHARLES MATTERA, an Individual, and UNITED STUDIOS BILLING, INC., Counterdefendants.
United States District Court, C.D. California.
January 29, 2019.
Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 1114
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 1114 Trademark Infringement
Nature of Suit: 840 Trademark
Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
United Studios of Self Defense, Inc., a California corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Adam P. Harris , Fortis LLP, Bryan Linh Ngo , Fortis LLP & Eric J. Hardeman , Fortis LLP.
Kristopher Rinehart, MD, an individual, South Bay Self Defense Studios, LLC, a California limited liability company, Los Angeles Studios of Self Defense LLC, Brent Murakami, an individual & SB Ninja LLC, a California limited liability company, Defendants, represented by Daniel C. DeCarlo , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Leo A. Bautista , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP.
Los Angeles Studios of Self Defense LLC, South Bay Self Defense Studios, LLC, a California limited liability company, SB Ninja LLC, a California limited liability company, Brent Murakami, an individual & Kristopher Rinehart, MD, an individual, Counter Claimants, represented by Daniel C. DeCarlo , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP & Leo A. Bautista , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP.
South Bay Studios of Self Defense LLC, Counter Claimant, represented by Leo A. Bautista , Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard and Smith LLP.
United Studios of Self Defense, Inc., a California corporation, Counter Defendant, represented by Adam P. Harris , Fortis LLP, Bryan Linh Ngo , Fortis LLP & Eric J. Hardeman , Fortis LLP.
[PROPOSED] ORDER ENTERING STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
DOUGLAS F. McCORMICK, Magistrate Judge.
The Court, having considered the Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order (the "Stipulation") entered into by Plaintiff/Counterdefendant United Studios of Self Defense, Inc. ("USSD"), Counterdefendant Charles Mattera ("Mattera"), Counterdefendant United Studios Billing, Inc. ("USB"), Defendant/Counterclaimant Kristopher Rinehart, M.D. ("Rinehart"), Defendant/Counterclaimant Brent Murakami ("Murakami"), Defendant/Counterclaimant South Bay Studios of Self Defense, LLC ("SBSSD"), Defendant/Counterclaimant Los Angeles Studios of Self Defense, LLC ("LASSD"), Counterclaimant S.B. Ninja, LLC ("S.B. Ninja"), and Counterclaimant Rolling Hills USSD, LLC ("Rolling Hills USSD") (collectively (the "Parties" and individually a "Party"), and good cause appearing, hereby orders as follows:
1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS
Discovery in this action is likely to 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 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order 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.
B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT
This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding Case 8:18-cv-01048-DOC-DFM Document 53 Filed 01/29/19 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:689 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.
C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL
The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties' mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the materialCase 8:18-cv-01048-DOC-DFM Document 53 Filed 01/29/19 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:690 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable— constitute good cause.
Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration.
Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible.
2. DEFINITIONS
2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit.