POWERbahn, LLC v. Zwift, Inc.

Filing 50

MINUTE ORDER RE PROTECTIVE ORDER, #49 by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Wilner. See attached order for further details. (mz)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-1393 MLH (MRWx)

Title

Powerbahn v. Zwift

Present: The Honorable

Date

November 28, 2017

Michael R. Wilner

Veronica Piper

n/a

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Petitioner:

Attorneys Present for Respondent:

None present

None present

Proceedings:

ORDER RE: PROTECTIVE ORDER

The parties submitted a proposed protective order regarding discovery in this civil action.
(Docket # 49.) The Court accepts and ENTERS the proposed order subject to the following:
1.
¶ 20 – Any challenge to a confidentiality designation must comply in full with the
joint filing format described in Local Rule 37 for all discovery motions.
2.
¶ 27 – Deleted from protective order. This paragraph is inconsistent with the
parties’ proposal regarding inadvertent production, and fails to comply with the apply-for-underseal-status requirements of Local Rule 79 and paragraph 28 of the order.
3.
The parties failed to provide the Court with an adequate statement of good cause
regarding the litigation. See Oliner v. Kontrabecki, 745 F. 3d 1024, 1026 (9th Cir. 2014).
While the Court recalls that this is some sort of patent-related action, the proposed order does
not adequately set forth the basis for the requested protections. As stated in the Court’s
preferred proposed protective order (available online at Judge Wilner’s procedures page at
cacd.uscourts.gov), the parties must identify legitimate bases for the entry of such an order that
are specific to this action; no boilerplate allowed. The entry of this order is contingent on the
filing of such a statement within five court days.
4.
In the future, the parties are advised to consult the webpage of the assigned judges
to determine whether they have a preferred base form protective order for the use of litigants.
FYI, Judge Wilner’s proposed order is derived from a recommendation from the Los Angeles
County Bar Association’s litigation section.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 1