Willstrop et al v. Prince Marketing LLC et al, No. 8:2017cv00350 - Document 103 (D. Neb. 2018)
Court Description: ORDER granting 102 Motion for Protective Order Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (Zwart, Cheryl)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Willstrop et al v. Prince Marketing LLC et al Doc. 103 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA JAMES WILLSTROP, SAURAV GHOSAL, NICOL DAVID AND Camille SERME ) ) ) Plaintifs, ) ) V. ) ) PRINCE MARKETING LLC, PRINCE GLOBAL ) SPORTS LLC, PRINCE SQUASH, LLC ) WAITT BRANDS, LLC, ATHLETIC ) BRANDS HOLDING COMPANY and ) AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP, LLC ) ) Deendants. ) Case No.: 17-CV-00350-LSC-CZ AGREED CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintifs James Willstrop, Saurav Ghosal, Nicol David and Camille Serme. ("Plaintiffs") and Deendants, Prince Marketing, LLC, Prince Global Sports, LLC, Prince Squash, LLC, Wait Brands, LLC and Authentic Brands Group, LLC ("Deendants") agree that during the course of this action certain information an/or documentation may be produced which raise issues related to rights of privacy, trade secrets, or confidentiality. Plaintiffs and Defendants ask that a confidentiality and protective order be entered by this Court and that said order protect confidential infomation from inappropriate disclosure. Plaintiffs and Deendants have therefore stipulated that this confidentiality and protective order (the "Protective Order") may be entered by the Court and that it shall goven all confidential information produced in these proceedings. By entering this Protective Order, the Court does not intend to create any presumption with Dockets.Justia.com regard to the actual confidentiality of any information or documents, or to alter the nomal burden of proof necessary or obtaining a protective order from the Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties' motion, (Filing No. 102), is granted as follows: 1. Deinition of Confidential Information. "Conidential Inormation" as used herein means any type or classification of inormation which is designated as CONFIDENTIAL by the supplying party, whether it be documents, inormation revealed during a deposition, information revealed in an interogatory answer, or otherwise, to or or any of the parties in this litigation. Materials designated as CONFIDENTIAL may be disclosed only to persons described in Paragraphs 3(A), 3(B), 3(C) and 3(D). In designating inormation as CONFIDENTIAL, a party will make such designation only as to that information the party in good aith believes contains confidential information. 2. Designation of Confidential Information. Each deposition transcript page or portion thereof, each interrogatory answer or portion thereof, each produced document or portion thereof, each thing or portion thereof, and each answer to a request or admission or portion thereof, which in good faith is deemed by counsel for a party to disclose confidential inormation of that party, shall be so identified and marked CONFIDENTIAL by that party's counsel. Such identification and marking shall be made: (a) in the case of an answer to an interrogatory or a response to a request or admission, at the time when the answer or response is served on the requesting party; (b) in the case of another document, when a copy of the document is provided to another party; or (c) in the case of an inspection of premises or things, either orally on the record at the time of the inspection (if there is a record of the inspection to be transcribed), or in a written notice delivered to counsel for the other party within ten (10) days July 11, 2018. BY THE COURT: _______________________ Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
