Summary
This document is a stipulated protective order entered in A-Sha Foods USA Co., Inc. v. Momo Orchard Holdings, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. It governs the designation, disclosure, use, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential and highly confidential discovery materials. The order was stipulated to and entered on November 21, 2025, by Magistrate Judge Michael B. Kaufman.
Holdings
- The court entered the stipulated protective order and limited its protections to specific information or items that qualify for confidential treatment under applicable legal principles, rather than granting blanket protection to all discovery.
- Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle the action and may be disclosed only to the persons and under the conditions specified in the protective order.
- A party or nonparty may challenge a confidentiality designation consistent with the scheduling order and applicable meet-and-confer procedures, but the designating party bears the burden of persuasion and the material remains protected until the court rules on the challenge.
- The protective order does not itself authorize filing material under seal; a party seeking to seal protected material must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of the specific material.
- After final disposition, upon written request and within 60 days, each receiving party must return or destroy protected material and provide written certification, subject to counsel's right to retain specified archival materials that remain subject to the protective order.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court should enter the parties' stipulated protective order governing designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and disposition of confidential discovery material.
- What procedures and standards should govern the treatment of confidential and highly confidential material produced in discovery.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (1)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…