Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

EarthKind, LLC v. Lebermuth Company Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Statesville Division

October 28, 2019

EARTHKIND, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
LEBERMUTH COMPANY INC. AND ROBERT M. BROWN, Defendants.
v.
KARI WARBERT BLOCK, Third-Party Defendant.

          Scott M. Tyler N.C. Bar No. 23300 Christopher D. Tomlinson N.C. Bar No. 38811, Kathryn G. Wellman N.C. Bar No. 51163, MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC Attorneys for Plaintiff/Third-Party Defendant

          Sara R. Lincoln N.C. Bar No. 22744, Phoebe N. Coddington N.C. Bar No. 35218, Lincoln Derr PLLC Attorneys for Defendants/Counterclaim/Third-Party Plaintiffs

          CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER

          David C. Keesler United States Magistrate Judge

         WHEREAS, this 25th day of October, 2019, it is hereby STIPULATED and AGREED between Plaintiff EarthKind, LLC, Defendants The Lebermuth Company Inc. and Robert M. Brown, and Third-Party Defendant Kari Walberg Block (collectively “the Consenting Parties”), and it is hereby ORDERED by the Court, that the following terms and conditions shall govern the use and handling of Confidential Information and documents produced by the Consenting Parties in the above-captioned matter (“this Litigation”):

         1. Scope. All documents and data, including electronically stored information, produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery requests, and all deposition testimony and deposition exhibits and any other materials which may be subject to discovery shall be subject to this Consent Protective Order (the “Protective Order”).

         2. Purpose. All documents, data, and information obtained through discovery in this Litigation shall be used only for the purposes of prosecuting or defending this Litigation.

         3. “Confidential Information” Defined. “Confidential Information” shall mean any and all information produced in the course of discovery or trial that a party deems in good faith to contain proprietary, technical, financial, sensitive personal, or confidential research, development, or commercial information that is not publicly available.

         4. “Attorney Eyes Only Information” Defined. The term “Attorney Eyes Only Information” or “AEO Information” shall mean any and all information produced in the course of discovery or trial that a party deems in good faith to contain extremely sensitive, highly confidential, or trade secret information that, if disclosed to another party or non-party, would create a substantial risk of harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

         5. Access to Confidential Information. Access to documents and information designated as CONFIDENTIAL shall be restricted to the following persons:

(a) parties to this Litigation and the officers and employees of the parties who are directly participating in the prosecution or defense of this Litigation;
(b) law firms of record of the parties to this Litigation and such firms' attorneys and staff;
(c) any person specially employed or engaged in this Litigation by a party or its attorneys as an expert, consultant, or vendor;
(d) the Court and its personnel;
(e) court reporters and videographers retained to transcribe or record depositions and court ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.