Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sream, Inc. v. Hatoum

United States District Court, C.D. California

July 13, 2016

SREAM, INC, a California corporation, Plaintiff,
v.
AREF HATOUM, et al., Defendants.

          Sream, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Imran F. Vakil, Nexio PC & Angelo Mishriki, Nexio PC.

          Aref Hatoum, Defendant, represented by Caroline H. Mankey, Sedgwick LLP, Robert F. Helfing, Sedgwick LLP & Erica R. Graves, Sedgwick LLP.

          STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER [NOTE THE CHANGE MADE BY THE COURT IN PARAGRAPH 7.4.4]

          SHERI PYM, Magistrate Judge.

         Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff Sream, Inc. ("Plaintiff"), and Defendant Aref Hatoum ("Defendant"), through counsel undersigned, jointly submit this Stipulated Protective Order to govern the handling of information and materials produced in the course of discovery or filed with the Court in this action;

         1. PURPOSES, LIMITATIONS AND GOOD CAUSE.

         1.1. Purpose and Limitations. Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are 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. 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; Civil Local 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.

         1.2. Good Cause Statement. It is the intent of the parties and the Court that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons in this case and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. Generally, information and documents shall be designated where the Designating Party believes is proprietary, confidential, and/or is trade secret, and which the Designating Party would not publically release. Examples of confidential information that the parties may seek to protect from unrestricted or unprotected disclosure include:

• Information that is the subject of a non-disclosure or confidentiality agreement or obligation;
• The names, or other information tending to reveal the identity of a Party's supplier, designer, distributor, or customer;
• Agreements with third-parties;
• Research and development information;
• Proprietary engineering or technical information, including product design, manufacturing techniques, processing information, drawings, memoranda and reports;
• Information related to budgets, sales, profits, costs, margins, product pricing, or other internal financial/accounting information, including non-public information related to financial condition or performance and income or other non-public tax information;
• Information related to internal operations including personnel information;
• Information related to past, current and future product development;
• Information related to past, current and future market analyses and business and marketing development, including plans, strategies, forecasts and competition;
• Information related a treatment received by a specific patient (as applicable); and,
• Trade secrets (as defined by the jurisdiction in which the information is located).
Unrestricted or unprotected disclosure of such confidential, technical, commercial or personal information would result in prejudice or harm to the Designating Party by revealing the Designating Party's competitive confidential information, which has been developed at the expense of the Designating Party and which represents valuable tangible and intangible assets of that party.
Additionally, privacy interests must be safeguarded. Accordingly, the parties respectfully submit that there is good cause for the entry of this Protective Order.

2. DEFINITIONS.

         2.1. Action: The above captioned federal lawsuit.

         2.2. "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" Information or Items: extremely sensitive "Confidential Information or Items, " disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

         2.3. Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order.

         2.4. "CONFIDENTIAL" Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

         2.5. Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff).

         2.6. Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY".

         2.7. Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter.

         2.8. Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who (1) has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action, (2) is not a past or current employee of a Party or of a Party's competitor, and (3) at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or of a Party's competitor.

         2.9. House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel.

         2.10. Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

         2.11. Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.