Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00668/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00668-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition For Removal--Other Contract

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Thomas J. Anton, Esq., SBN 060450

Stephen P. Wainer, Esq., SBN 156197

THOMAS ANTON & ASSOCIATES 

1600 “G” Street

P. O. Box 2127

Bakersfield, California 93301-2127

Telephone: (661) 327-7051

Facsimile: (661) 327-4755

Attorneys for Defendant 

ELCO Filtration & Testing, Inc.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION

Davis-Lynch, Inc.

 Plaintiff,

v.

Elco Filtration & Testing, Inc. 

 Defendant.

No.: 1:05-CV-668-REC-DLB

STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE

ORDER AND CONFIDENTIALITY

AGREEMENT; ORDER

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by the parties to this action, DAVIS-LYNCH, INC.. 

(“Plaintiff”), and ELCO FILTRATION AND TESTING INC. (“Defendant”) that:

WHEREAS, Plaintiff has subpoenaed certain documents from Occidental of Elk Hills,

Inc. (“Occidental”) relating to billing invoices and sales receipts from Elco Filtration and Testing

Inc. to Occidental Petroleum regarding the sales of any Davis-Lynch products for the time period

November 2003 through the end of 2004 (the “Occidental Documents”).

WHEREAS, in response to the subpoena, Occidental has advised that it does not have the

ability to segregate billing invoices and sales receipts from Elco that contain Davis-Lynch

products, if any, from those Elco invoices containing products from other manufacturers, and

therefore Occidental intends to produce all Elco billing invoices for the time period referenced

above.

WHEREAS, Elco considers Elco’s pricing information for Elco’s wellhead equipment to

Case 1:05-cv-00668-DLB Document 52 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

be proprietary, and therefore desires to protect the confidentiality of that pricing information,

THEREFORE, the parties stipulate to the following:

1. The Occidental Documents produced in response to the subpoena of Davis-Lynch

shall not be used or disclosed except as expressly permitted hereunder. By agreeing to this

Stipulation, Defendant does not waive any privilege claim with respect to the use of the

Occidental Documents and the information therein outside of this litigation.

2. The parties agree that use of the Occidental Documents must be for the purposes

of this litigation only. The parties may also make one set of copies of the Occidental Documents

for each consultant it has retained who intends to rely upon these documents in the formation of

their opinions in this case. The parties may also make copies of the Occidental Documents for

use as deposition exhibits and/or trial exhibits, but those copies must be kept under seal if filed

with the court, unless the parties agree that the document may be filed without placing same

under seal, and are subject to the same distribution limitations as the Occidental Documents

themselves. No other photocopies or reproductions of any kind may be made by anyone of any

of the Occidental Documents.

3. Neither the Occidental Documents themselves nor information within these

documents may be transmitted to any individual or entity not directly involved in this litigation. 

Those “directly involved in this litigation” include the parties, the parties’ attorneys, the

employees of the parties’ attorneys, the expert consultants retained by the parties, and the

employees of those experts consultants. Defendant requires that the Occidental Documents

remain in the possession of Plaintiff’s counsel after the conclusion of the litigation until such

time as the Occidental Documents are destroyed. 

4. The provisions of this Order and the obligation to retain the confidentiality of the

Occidental Documents produced hereunder, absent written permission of the producing party, or

further Order of the Court, shall survive and continue to be binding after the conclusion of this

action. This Court shall retain jurisdiction over the parties to the extent necessary to enforce said

obligation.

Case 1:05-cv-00668-DLB Document 52 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Dated: 1/19/07 COLEMAN & HOROWITT, LLP

/s/ Laurence Y. Wong

By:_________________________ 

LAURENCE Y. WONG, Esq.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: 1/19/07 THOMAS ANTON & ASSOCIATES

Stephen P. Wainer

By:__________________________ 

STEPHEN P. WAINER, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

3b142a Dated: January 22, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00668-DLB Document 52 Filed 01/22/07 Page 3 of 3