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.

Southern California Regional Rail Authority v. Hyundai Rotem Co.

United States District Court, C.D. California

November 7, 2017

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGIONAL RAIL AUTHORITY, a joint powers authority, Plaintiffs,
v.
HYUNDAI ROTEM COMPANY, a South Korean corporation, RAUL V. BRAVO ASSOCIATES, INC., a Virginia corporation, and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. AND ALL RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

         DISCOVERY MATTER

          PROTECTIVE ORDER

          Hon. John E. McDermott United States Magistrate Judge

         The Court has reviewed the Stipulation and [Proposed] Protective Order (“Stipulation”) submitted jointly by Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant Southern California Regional Rail Authority (“Metrolink”), Defendant and Counter-Claimant Hyundai Rotem Company (“Hyundai”) and Defendant Raul V. Bravo Associates, Inc. (“Raul Bravo”) (individually, each a “Party” and collectively, the “Parties”)) and, for good cause, the Court approves the Stipulation and enters the following Order:

         PROTECTIVE ORDER

         1. PURPOSES, LIMITATIONS AND GOOD CAUSE

         A. Purposes 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.

         B. Good Cause Statement

         This action is likely to involve non-public commercial, financial, 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, nonpublic and/or proprietary information regarding the technical aspects of railcars manufactured by Hyundai Rotem Company and owned by Southern California Regional Rail Authority, such as specifications and testing information, non-public testing formulas and methods, and security information pertaining to Raul V. Bravo Associates, Inc., and other information that is confidential to the Parties; nonpublic and/or proprietary financial information; and nonpublic and/or proprietary operational reports and similar business information. The Parties operate in a competitive environment with respect to railcars, and the Parties may have information and materials that contain confidential or proprietary information. If disclosed to third parties, that information could place the Parties at a competitive disadvantage.

         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 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 will 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.

         2. DEFINITIONS

         2.1 Action: This pending lawsuit, captioned as Southern California Regional Rail Authority v. Hyundai Rotem Company, C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-08042-JAK (JEMx), including all related counterclaims.

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

         2.3 “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), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement.

         2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel, as well as their support staff.

         2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 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.

         2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action.

         2.8 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.

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

         2.10 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 affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that Party.

         2.11 Party: any Party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, agents, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs).

         2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this action.

         2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors.

         2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL, ” ...


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.