Sofpool, LLC v. KMart Corporation et al

Filing 40

STIPULATION and ORDER TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge John F. Moulds on 12/15/2011 ORDERING that the provisions of the Protective Order, §§ 7.2(b), (f)(ii), and (g), and 7.3(b), (f)(ii), and (g) shall not apply to docu ments, information, or objects produced by Intex in response to the Subpoena or otherwise. Namely, documents that Intex designates as "Highly Confidential - Attorneys' Eyes Only" shall not be disclosed to persons otherwise permitted ac cess to such Protected Material under the foregoing identified provisions of the Protective Order. To lower Intex's burden in complying with the Subpoena, confidentiality designations can be made on a document by document basis, as opposed to a page or partial page basis. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUITE 1400

I R V I N E , CA 9 2 6 1 4 - 2 5 4 5

5 PARK PLAZA

T ROUTMAN S ANDERS LLP

11

SACRAMENTO DIVISION

12
13
14

SOFPOOL LLC, a limited liability
company,

15
16
17
18

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. CV 10-03333 LKK (JFM)
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY THE
PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR INTEX
RECREATION CORP.’S SUBPOENAED
DOCUMENTS AND INFORMATION

KMART CORPORATION, a Michigan
Corporation, BIG LOTS, INC., an Ohio
Corporation, and BIG LOTS STORES,
INC., an Ohio Corporation,

19
Defendants.
20
21

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS.

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

1
WHEREAS, on July 26, 2011, counsel for the defendants Kmart Corporation and Big

2
3

Lots Stores, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) issued a subpoena to produce documents,

4

information or objects in a Civil Action (“Subpoena”) to Intex Recreation Corp. (“Intex”);
WHEREAS, Intex has objected to the production of certain documents, information or

5
6

objects, including on the grounds of confidentiality of certain responsive documents and

7

information;
WHEREAS, the Defendants and Intex have met and conferred to resolve Intex’s concerns

8
9

arising from the Subpoena;
WHEREAS, Section 10(a) of the Protective Order entered in this action [Dkt. No. 37]

10

SUITE 1400

I R V I N E , CA 9 2 6 1 4 - 2 5 4 5

5 PARK PLAZA

provides that the Court may grant additional protections for a Non-Party’s documents and

12
T ROUTMAN S ANDERS LLP

11

information not afforded by the Protective Order;

13

WHEREAS, the plaintiff Sofpool LLC (“Sofpool”) assents to the relief set forth herein;

14

NOW, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), Local Rule 143, and the

15

Protective Order, § 10(a), the parties hereby stipulate and agree as follows:
The provisions of the Protective Order, §§ 7.2(b), (f)(ii), and (g), and 7.3(b), (f)(ii), and

16
17

(g) shall not apply to documents, information, or objects produced by Intex in response to the

18

Subpoena or otherwise. Namely, documents that Intex designates as “Highly Confidential -

19

Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall not be disclosed to persons otherwise permitted access to such

20

Protected Material under the foregoing identified provisions of the Protective Order.

21

/////

22

/////

23

/////

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
-1JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER

1
2

To lower Intex’s burden in complying with the Subpoena, confidentiality designations can

3

be made on a document by document basis, as opposed to a page or partial page basis.

4

IT IS SO STIPULATED, THROUGH COUNSEL OF RECORD.

5
6

DATED: December 12, 2011
Jack Slobodin
Attorney for Plaintiff

7
8
9

DATED: December 12, 2011

10
11

SUITE 1400

I R V I N E , CA 9 2 6 1 4 - 2 5 4 5

5 PARK PLAZA

T ROUTMAN S ANDERS LLP

12

/s/ Paul L. Gale
Paul L. Gale
Attorney for Defendant

PURSUANT TO STIPULATION, IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 15, 2011.

13
14
15
16

/014;sofp3333.po2

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2JOINT STIPULATION TO MODIFY PROTECTIVE ORDER