`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PHILIPS NORTH AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`FITBIT, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 19-cv-11586-IT
`
`ORDER ADOPTING DISCOVERY STIPULATION AND MODIFIED PROTECTIVE
`
`April 2, 2020
`
`TALWANI, D.J.
`
`
`
`Now before the court is the parties’ Joint Notice for Entry of Agreed Protective Order
`
`and Discovery Stipulation [#58].
`
`The [Proposed] Stipulation on Discovery [#58-2] is adopted as submitted by the parties,
`
`and is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
`
`The [Proposed] Protective Order [#58-1] is adopted by the court, excepting that
`
`Paragraph 6 is deleted and Paragraph 12.B(4) is modified to delete the words “hearings or trial.”
`
`The Protective Order as so modified is attached hereto as Attachment 2. The Protective Order is
`
`further modified in that Paragraph 6 is replaced with the following paragraph:
`
`No Party shall file any confidential business information submitted in accordance with
`
`the provisions of paragraph 2 above with the court until the court determines whether
`
`such material may be filed under seal or on the public docket. A Party seeking to file
`
`such material shall first notify the Party who designated the material, and the Party
`
`seeking to maintain the confidentiality of the material shall promptly file a Motion to
`
`Impound Designated Material in accordance with District of Massachusetts Local Rule
`
`
`
`Case 1:19-cv-11586-IT Document 59 Filed 04/02/20 Page 2 of 2
`
`7.2 and ECF Administrative Procedures. The Motion to Impound shall reference this
`
`Order, describe the general nature and purpose for submitting the paper (i.e., exhibit to
`
`declaration in support of motion, etc.), and provide a factual demonstration of potential
`
`harm to support the request for leave to file the document under seal.1 Reference to a
`
`document’s designation as confidential business information pursuant to the Protective
`
`Order, without more, will not suffice to show a particularized need for impoundment. If
`
`a Party obtains leave to file confidential business information under seal, the filing party
`
`shall be responsible for informing the Clerk of the Court that the filing should be sealed
`
`and for placing the legend “FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE
`
`ORDER” above the caption and conspicuously on each page of the filing. Exhibits to a
`
`filing shall conform to the labeling requirements set forth in this Order. If a pretrial
`
`pleading filed with the court, or an exhibit thereto, discloses or relies on confidential
`
`documents, information, or material, such confidential portions shall be redacted to the
`
`extent necessary on the pleading or exhibit filed publicly with the court.
`
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Date: April 2, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Indira Talwani
` United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`1 Because the public has a “presumptive” right of access to judicial documents, “‘only the most
`compelling reasons can justify non-disclosure of judicial records that come within the scope of
`the common-law right of access.’” United States v. Kravetz, 706 F.3d 47, 59 (1st Cir. 2013)
`(quoting In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1, 10 (1st Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, the burden
`is on the party seeking to maintain a document’s confidentiality to demonstrate that impounding
`the document will not violate the public’s presumptive right of access, including “‘a particular
`factual demonstration of potential harm, not . . . conclusory statements’” as to why a document
`should be sealed. Id. at 60 (quoting Fed. Trade Comm’n v. Standard Fin. Mgmt. Corp., 830 F.2d
`404, 412 (1st Cir. 1987)); see also Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 805 F.2d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 1986) (“A
`finding of good cause must be based on a particular factual demonstration of potential harm, not
`on conclusory statements.” (citations omitted)).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
