Summary
This document is a court-entered Stipulated Protective Order in Alqosh Enterprises, Inc. and NMRM, Inc. v. PepsiCo, Inc. and Frito-Lay North America, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01327-MRA-JDE, in the Central District of California. It governs the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, and disposition of confidential and highly confidential discovery material, including procedures for seeking to file protected material under seal.
Holdings
- Good cause existed to enter a protective order because discovery was likely to involve trade secrets, proprietary business information, personal information, and other materials warranting protection from public disclosure and use outside the litigation.
- The protective order does not provide blanket protection for all discovery; designations must be limited to specific material that qualifies for protection, made in good faith, and supported by the applicable legal standards.
- A party may not file protected material under seal merely because it bears a confidential designation; the party must comply with Local Civil Rule 79-5 and make the showing required for the type of filing involved.
- Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle the action and must be returned or destroyed after final disposition, subject to the order's archival-copy exception.
- The parties' stipulated clawback procedures apply to inadvertently produced privileged or otherwise protected material, and inadvertent disclosure under the order does not itself waive an applicable privilege or protection.
Questions Presented
- Whether good cause existed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to enter a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery material.
- What procedures and limitations should govern designation, disclosure, challenge, filing under seal, use, clawback, and final disposition of protected material.
- What showing is required before protected discovery material may be filed under seal, including the distinction between good cause for non-dispositive matters and compelling reasons for dispositive motions or trial.
Disposition
other
Cases Cited (5)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1180-81 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
- Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
- Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999)(followed)
- Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…