Lolicel (PTY) Ltd. v. Stanmar International [USA] Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LOLICEL (PTY) Ltd, Case No.: 22-cv-926-LL-DTF

10 Plaintiff,

ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY

11 v. DISPUTE 12 STANMAR INTERNATIONAL (USA) Inc., et al. 13 Defendants. 14 15 On June 26, 2025 the Parties, via a Joint Discovery Statement, notified the Court 16 that an issue had arisen regarding the confidential nature of portions of the deposition of 17 defendant Martin Pamensky being de-designated for use in another proceeding pending 18 between the Parties in South Africa. 19 Plaintiff maintains that the testimony at issue does not qualify as “Confidential” 20 under Paragraph 4(a) of the Protective Order. Further, it contends the testimony is 21 necessary in the South Africa action to contradict an affidavit submitted by Mr. Pamensky. 22 Defendant counters that the testimony at issue is confidential and includes details regarding 23 Defendants’ corporate formation, structure and relationships. Additionally, it argues that 24 it is inappropriate for…