Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Fear of God, LLC sued Yan Yan Accessory LLC, Yan Zhang, and Lin Liheng, individually and doing business as Yan Yan Accessory LLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 2:26-cv-07397-SB-AS, alleging counterfeiting-related claims. During discovery, the parties anticipated exchanging trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, supplier information, product authentication and anti-counterfeiting information, investigative information, and other commercial, financial, technical, and proprietary material for which special protection from public disclosure and from use outside the litigation could be warranted.
The parties jointly stipulated to and petitioned the court for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They acknowledged that the order would not confer blanket protections on all discovery material and would not itself entitle them to file confidential information under seal. They argued that a two-tiered structure was necessary because disclosure of certain information — particularly the plaintiff's authentication and investigative methods — could enable the production of more sophisticated counterfeit goods, citing Elements Spirits, Inc. v. Iconic Brands, Inc. and other Central District of California authority supporting attorneys'-eyes-only designations.
United States Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar considered the joint motion and, on November 4, 2026, entered the order reciting 'FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN' and granting the Joint Motion for Stipulated Protective Order.
The Court’s Holding
The order establishes two levels of confidentiality: 'CONFIDENTIAL' and 'HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY.' The protections cover not only designated material itself but also any information copied or extracted from it, all copies, excerpts, summaries, and compilations, and any testimony, conversations, or presentations that might reveal protected material. The order expressly does not confer blanket protections, and it does not entitle the parties to file confidential material under seal: protected material may be filed under seal only pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the specific material at issue, and any such request must also comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5.
Designating parties must exercise restraint and limit designations to specific material that qualifies; mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited, and clearly unjustified or improper designations may expose the designating party to sanctions. Any party or non-party may challenge a confidentiality designation at any time consistent with the scheduling order, the burden of persuasion rests on the designating party, frivolous challenges may bring sanctions, and material retains its designated protection until the court rules on the challenge.
Access to 'CONFIDENTIAL' material is limited to outside counsel of record and their staff, the officers, directors, and employees (including House Counsel) of the receiving party to whom disclosure is reasonably necessary, experts who sign the acknowledgment form, the court and its personnel, court reporters, professional consultants and vendors, document authors or custodians, witnesses and their attorneys during depositions, and mediators. The 'HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY' tier is limited to the categories in Paragraphs 7.2(a) and (c)–(g) and (i), excluding in-house party representatives unless the designating party consents in writing or the court grants leave. The order also governs inadvertent production of privileged material under Rule 26(b)(5)(B) and Federal Rule of Evidence 502, unauthorized disclosures, subpoenas in other litigation, non-party material, and post-litigation return or destruction of protected material within 60 days of a written request.
Key Takeaways
- The court adopted a two-tier protective order allowing the most sensitive materials — such as anti-counterfeiting authentication and investigative methods — to be designated 'HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY,' restricting access to outside counsel, approved experts, and other listed categories.
- Designating parties must exercise restraint: mass, indiscriminate, or clearly unjustified designations may expose them to sanctions, and frivolous challenges to designations may expose the challenging party to sanctions.
- The protective order does not itself authorize filing under seal; a party seeking to file protected material under seal must comply with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and obtain a court order authorizing sealing of the specific material.
- Confidentiality obligations survive final disposition of the case, and receiving parties must return or destroy protected material within 60 days of a written request, though counsel may retain archival copies of litigation documents that remain subject to the order.
- Any violation of the order may be punished by contempt proceedings and/or monetary sanctions.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates how courts in counterfeiting and intellectual-property cases balance the need for open discovery against the risk that disclosing authentication and investigative techniques could facilitate further counterfeiting. The two-tier structure — particularly the attorneys'-eyes-only designation for the plaintiff's most sensitive anti-counterfeiting methods — reflects a practical approach to protecting commercially sensitive information while allowing the litigation to proceed.
The order also reinforces that stipulated protective orders do not override the public's presumptive right of access to court filings. By requiring both compliance with Civil Local Rule 79-5 and a court order authorizing sealing of the specific protected material, the court maintained the distinction between discovery confidentiality and the higher standard for sealing judicial records.