Allstate Insurance Company v. Shah, MD

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided May 8, 2023·No. 2:15-cv-01786·Unknown

Opinion

1 JONATHAN W. CARLSON Nevada Bar No. 10536 2 TODD W. BAXTER Admitted Pro Hac Vice 3 GREGORY S. MASON Admitted Pro Hac Vice 4 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 5 8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 6 Telephone: (702) 949-1100 Facsimile: (702) 949-1101 7 jonathan.carlson@mccormickbarstow.com todd.baxter@mccormickbarstow.com 8 greg.mason@mccormickbarstow.com 9 ERON Z. CANNON Nevada Bar No. 8013 10 FAIN ANDERSON VANDERHOEF ROSENDAHL O’HALLORAN SPILLANE PLLC 11 701 5th Avenue #4750 Seattle, Washington 98104 12 Telephone: (206) 749-0094 Facsimile: (206) 749-0194 13 eron@favros.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY 18 INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE STIPULATION AND ORDER TO INDEMNITY COMPANY, and ALLSTATE SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS 19 FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE AND TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL COMPANY, EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF 20 ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR Plaintiffs, PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY 21 JUDGMENT v. 22 RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, DIPTI R. SHAH, 23 MD, RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD., DIPTI R. SHAH, MD, LTD., and RADAR 24 MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE, DOES 1-100, and ROES 25 101-200, 26 Defendants. 27 AND RELATED CLAIMS 1 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS AND TO SEAL CONFIDENTIAL EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR 2 PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 3 Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE 4 PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, and 5 ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Allstate”), 6 and Defendants and Counterclaimant RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., DIPTI R. SHAH, M.D., 7 RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., LTD., DIPTI R. SHAH, M.D., LTD., and RADAR MEDICAL GROUP, 8 LLP d/b/a UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Radar 9 Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record stipulate and agree as follows: 10 1. On April 10, 2023, the Honorable Court issued an Order (ECF No. 556) denying 11 without prejudice Allstate’s Motion For Leave (ECF No. 550) to: 1. Redact Their Response to Radar 12 Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 460); and 2. File Under Seal Exhibits in Support 13 of Allstate’s Response to Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment on Allstate’s Causes of 14 Action in the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 460) (hereinafter, the “Motion for Leave”). The 15 Court, in denying Allstate’s Motion for Leave, granted Allstate leave to file a renewed Motion to 16 Seal associated with its Response (ECF No. 547) to the Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary 17 Judgment on Allstate’s Causes of Action in its First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 460). 18 2. In consideration of the Court’s Order, the parties met and conferred and reached an 19 agreement as to (i) redactions of Allstate’s Response (ECF No. 547) and certain exhibits submitted 20 in support of the Response, and (ii) confidential exhibits to seal that were submitted in support of 21 Allstate’s Response. 22 3. The parties hereby stipulate to the substitution of Allstate’s Response (ECF No. 547) 23 containing redactions of confidential and/or protected business and/or financial information of the 24 parties and/or private health information of non-parties. The redacted Response is being publicly- 25 filed with the Court. 26 4. The parties hereby stipulate to the substitution of Allstate’s Appendix of Exhibits to 27 Allstate’s Response to Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 550-1, Exhibits 1- 1 the parties and/or private health information of non-parties in lieu of sealing the entirety of the 2 following exhibits: 3 a. Exhibit 1: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) medical 4 information of a non-party, (ii) private business and financial information of the Radar Parties, 5 including information in relation to the Radar Parties’ profit and loss statements, income, salary, 6 and expenses, and (iii) patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 1 is being 7 publicly-filed with the Court; 8 b. Exhibit 2: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private 9 business and financial information of the Radar Parties, including dollar amounts discussed in 10 relation to the Radar Parties’ charges and lien reductions, and (ii) patient/claimant names. As a 11 result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 2 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 12 c. Exhibit 3: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact 13 patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 3 is being publicly-filed with the 14 Court; 15 d. Exhibit 4: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private 16 business and financial information of the Radar Parties, including dollar amounts discussed in 17 relation to the Radar Parties’ charges and lien reductions, and (ii) patient/claimant names. As a 18 result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 4 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 19 e. Exhibit 6: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact 20 patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 6 is being publicly-filed with the 21 Court; 22 f. Exhibit 8: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact 23 patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 8 is being publicly-filed with the 24 Court; 25 g. Exhibit 22: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact private 26 business and financial information of the Radar Parties, including their Tax ID number and dollar 27 amounts billed and paid in relation to Radar Parties’ treatment of the patient/claimants involved in 1 h. Exhibit 25: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact 2 patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 25 is being publicly-filed with the 3 Court; 4 i. Exhibit 28: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private 5 business and financial information of the Radar Parties, including dollar amounts and percentages 6 discussed in relation to the Radar Parties’ charges and lien reductions, and (ii) patient/claimant 7 names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 28 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 8 j. Exhibit 30: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact 9 patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 30 is being publicly-filed with the 10 Court; 11 k. Exhibit 31: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact 12 patient/claimant names. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 31 is being publicly-filed with the 13 Court. 14 5. The parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following exhibits to Allstate’s 15 Response to the Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment should be sealed and that redacting 16 these exhibits is not feasible under the circumstances given the extent of confidential information 17 discussed or contained in them as described below, see, e.g., Ansara v. Maldonado, No. 2:19-cv- 18 01394-GMN-VCF, 2022 WL 17253803, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2022): 19 a. Exhibit 9: The parties agree that the excerpts of deposition testimony 20 from patient/claimant A.G. should be sealed as said testimony contains private and confidential 21 medical/health information of the deponent. As a result, the parties request that Exhibit 9 be sealed. 22 b. Exhibit 10: The parties agree that the excerpts of deposition testimony 23 from patient/claimant G.P. should be sealed as said testimony contains private and confidential 24 medical/health information of the deponent. As a result, the parties request that Exhibit 10 be sealed. 25 c. Exhibit 11: The parties agree that the excerpts of deposition testimony 26 from patient/claimant C.D. should be sealed as said testimony contains private and confidential 27 medical/health information of the deponent. As a result, the parties request that Exhibit 11 be sealed. 1 d.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Allstate Insurance Company v. Shah, MD, (D. Nev. 2023).

Allstate Insurance Company v. Shah, MD (Allstate Insurance Company v. Shah, MD) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)