Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Texco, Inc., a California corporation, sued Stand Out for Good, Inc., doing business as “Altar’d State,” a Tennessee corporation, and Does 1 through 10 in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division, under Case No. 2:26-cv-04006-PA-AYP. On November 6, 2026, the parties filed a stipulated protective order (Document 39) asking the court to govern the handling of confidential discovery material in the action.
The parties explained that discovery is likely to involve non-public sales, revenue, cost, pricing, and profit information; agreements with, purchase orders to, and pricing terms from vendors, suppliers, and manufacturers; customer information; non-public design materials and development files; and other commercial, financial, technical, and proprietary information. They represented that public disclosure of such material could cause competitive harm by revealing costs, margins, pricing, and supplier relationships to competitors and customers, and they asked the court to enter the order to expedite the flow of information and facilitate prompt resolution of confidentiality disputes.
United States Magistrate Judge Anna Y. Park signed the order, providing that “FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED.”
The Court’s Holding
The court entered the stipulated protective order, which establishes a two-tier designation system. Disclosure or discovery material may be designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or, for extremely sensitive information, “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” The higher tier is limited to non-public cost, margin, profit, and pricing information and the specific financial terms of agreements with suppliers or customers, the disclosure of which would create a substantial risk of serious competitive harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.
The order expressly does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or discovery responses; protection extends only to the limited information entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. It also does not entitle the parties to file confidential information under seal — Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets the procedures and standards for sealing, and protected material may be filed under seal only by court order on a showing of good cause.
The order restricts use of protected material to prosecuting, defending, or settling the action, limits disclosure to enumerated categories of persons such as counsel of record, experts, and the court, and places the burden of persuasion on the designating party in any challenge. Its terms do not extend beyond the commencement of trial, at which point previously confidential court-filed information becomes presumptively available to the public absent compelling reasons supported by specific factual findings. After final disposition, each receiving party must, within 60 days of a written request, return or destroy all protected material and certify compliance.
Key Takeaways
- The court granted the parties' stipulated protective order, finding good cause to protect confidential commercial, financial, and design-related discovery material in this action.
- Confidentiality designations are two-tiered, and the “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” tier is reserved for non-public pricing, margin, profit, and supplier or customer financial terms.
- The order disclaims blanket protection for all discovery responses and does not authorize sealing; parties must still comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order to file protected material under seal.
- The protective order's terms lapse at the commencement of trial, when previously confidential court-filed information becomes presumptively public unless the trial judge finds compelling reasons otherwise.
- After final disposition, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within 60 days of a written request and submit a written certification that no copies were retained.
Why It Matters
The order illustrates the standard framework the Central District of California applies to discovery confidentiality in commercial litigation: party-driven designations subject to challenge, judicial oversight of sealing through Civil Local Rule 79-5, and a presumption of public access once the case reaches trial. For litigants, it confirms that a stipulated protective order does not displace the separate good-cause requirements for filing under seal, and that the burden of defending a confidentiality designation rests on the designating party.