Javo Beverage Co. v. Cal. Extraction Ventures, Inc.

Full title: JAVO BEVERAGE CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA EXTRACTION VENTURES…

Court: United States District Court, Southern District of California

Date published: Dec 29, 2021

No. 19-CV-1859-CAB-WVG (S.D. Cal. Dec. 29, 2021)

Opinion

19-CV-1859-CAB-WVG

12-29-2021

JAVO BEVERAGE CO., INC., Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA EXTRACTION VENTURES, INC.; and STEPHEN COREY, Defendants. AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS

Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF SECOND AMENDMENT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER

Hon. William V. Gallo United States Magistrate Judge

On December 28, 2021, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for Entry of Second Amendment to Protective Order (“Joint Motion”). (Doc. No. 131.) The Parties seek this Court's entry of a second amendment to the operative Protective Order (Doc. No. 76) to maintain confidentiality in certain documents and information after defense counsel formally withdrew from the action on October 28, 2021 (Doc. No. 124) and Defendants subsequently obtained new counsel to represent them in this litigation. Having reviewed and considered the Parties' submission, the Court finds good cause supports their request for entry of a second amendment to the operative Protective Order. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Joint Motion and, upon issuance of this Order, makes enforceable the 1 following language as submitted and agreed upon by the Parties:

The term “Outside Counsel” in the Protective Order [Dkt. 76] is hereby amended to mean (i) outside counsel of record who appear on the pleadings as counsel for a party in this action, and (ii) other outside attorneys, paralegals, secretaries, and support staff employed in their respective law firms, provided that any individuals under subsection (i) or (ii) have not advised and will not advise (directly or indirectly) any party on the preparation or prosecution of any current or future patents or patent applications.¹ Outside Counsel includes, but is not limited to:

1 For avoidance of doubt, “Outside Counsel” does not include any counsel that is advising or will advise (directly or indirectly) CEV or Corey on any preparation or prosecution of current or future patents or patent applications, including but not limited to David Heisey, Esq., Hector Agdeppa, Esq., Daniel Yannuzzi, Esq., Eric Gill, Esq., Jonathan Marina, Esq., Mark Catanese, Esq., and Michael Klicpera, Esq.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff and Counterclaim-Defendant, Javo Beverage Co., Inc.	Counsel of Record for Defendant and Counter-Claimant, California Extraction Ventures, Inc.	Counsel of Record for Defendant Stephen Corey
Cooley LLP Steven M. Strauss, Esq. Erin C. Trenda, Esq. Alexander R. Miller, Esq. Joanna Liebes Hubberts, Esq. 4401 Eastgate Mall San Diego, CA 92121 Jeffrey Karr, Esq. 3175 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Eamonn Gardner, Esq. 1144 15th St., Ste. 900 Denver, CO 80202	Meador & Engle Alan E. Engle, Esq. 1115 Seal Way Seal Beach, CA 90740	Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP Craig Holden, Esq. 633 West 5th St., Ste. 4000 Los Angeles, California 90071 Gary K. Brucker, Jr., Esq. Anastasiya Menshikova, Esq. 550 West C St., Ste. 1700 San Diego, CA 92101

2

This amendment does not release former “Outside Counsel” for CEV and Corey at Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP or Garcia Rainey Blank & Bowerbank, LLP (each a “Former Outside Counsel”) from their obligations under the Order, including with respect to Former Outside Counsel's appropriate treatment and return or destruction of all

Confidential Information belonging to Javo or any non-party. [See Dkt. 76.]

IT IS SO ORDERED. 3