Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company; James River Insurance Company; Kinsale Insurance Company; and Does 1 – 10, inclusive.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 5, 2026·No. 5:25-cv-02405·Unknown

Opinion

ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES CASE NO: 5:25-cv-02405 MCS (AGRx) INSURANCE COMPANY, INC. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER v. MT. HAWLEY INSURANCE COMPANY; JAMES RIVER Assigned to Dept: 7C INSURANCE COMPANY; Judge: Hon. Mark C. Scarsi COMPANY; AND DOES 1 – 10, inclusive. Defendants. 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. This action involves whether and to what extent any defendant also has a duty to defend or indemnify Plaintiff’s named insured, Orr Builders, Inc. (“Orr”), in an ongoing underlying Breach of Contract/Construction Defect arbitration (“Underlying Action”) either as a named insured or as an additional insured on liability policies issued to subcontractors. As a result, discovery will likely include status reports, liability analyses, and unredacted defense billing, which contain privileged attorney-client communications and/or attorney work product as to third-parties. Further, Plaintiff represents that the construction defect portion of the Underlying Action is close to resolving but Orr and the underlying property owner must still resolve certain breach of contract and failure to pay claims. Therefore, Plaintiff believes this action necessarily involves and includes confidential communications about the ongoing defense of Orr in the Underlying Action among and between the underlying plaintiff, Orr, Orr’s subcontractors, Orr and the subcontractors’ defense counsel, insurance defense counsel, and insurance coverage counsel for the parties involving, but not limited to, analysis and discussion of the claims against Orr in the Underlying Action regarding merits of the claims, defenses, damages, potential liability of Orr and its subcontractors, and grounds for coverage under insurance policies issued to Orr and under policies in which Orr qualifies as an additional insured that are privileged or protected as to other parties. (See, Lectrolarm Custom Sys. v. Pelco Sales, Inc., 212 F.R.D. 567, 572 (E.D. Cal. 2002)). It would be highly and unduly prejudicial to Orr if, for example, the cross- complaint property owner in the Underlying Action was able to discover and obtain these confidential and privileged communications. Additionally, the action may also involve proprietary information in regard to claims handling, and/or adjusting of claims for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information may consist of, among other things, confidential or proprietary business or financial information, confidential information regarding business practices, market research, business development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under insurance regulations, state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.13 Professional Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.14 Protected Material: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.15 Receiving Party: a Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. 3. SCOPE The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be

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

Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company; James River Insurance Company; Kinsale Insurance Company; and Does 1 – 10, inclusive., (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company; James River Insurance Company; Kinsale Insurance Company; and Does 1 – 10, inclusive. (Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company; James River Insurance Company; Kinsale Insurance Company; and Does 1 – 10, inclusive.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lectrolarm Custom Systems, Inc. v. Pelco Sales, Inc.
212 F.R.D. 567 (E.D. California, 2002)