Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc.

Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. · United States District Court for the Central District of California · February 21, 2025 · No. 2:23-cv-07624-MEMF-AJR

Summary

This document is a stipulated protective order entered in Stephen Rozzo v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-07624, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. It governs the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing under seal, and final disposition of confidential discovery materials, and was stipulated to on February 20, 2025 and ordered on February 21, 2025.

Holdings

  1. Good cause supported entry of the parties' stipulated protective order governing qualifying confidential discovery material.
  2. The stipulated protective order does not itself authorize filing confidential information under seal; a party must comply with Local Civil Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of specific material.
  3. Material related to a dispositive motion or trial may be sealed only upon a showing of compelling reasons supported by specific facts and legal justification, and the requested relief must be narrowly tailored.
  4. Once the case proceeds to trial, material designated confidential or maintained under the protective order that is used or introduced as a trial exhibit becomes public and is presumptively available unless the trial judge makes specific findings supporting continued restriction based on compelling reasons.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether good cause supported entry of the parties' stipulated protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).
  2. What procedures and limitations should govern designation, disclosure, challenge, sealing, use, and final disposition of confidential discovery material.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (5)

  • Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006)(followed)
  • Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999)(followed)
  • Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Association, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010)(followed)
  • Kamakana v. City and 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 PDF
Loading document…