Avanguard Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 28, 2020·No. 2:20-cv-03405·Unknown

Opinion

A Professional Corporation ANDREW H. SELESNICK (SBN: 160516) aselesnick@buchalter.com THOMAS C. RICKEMAN (SBN: 288248) trickeman@buchalter.com 1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730 Telephone: (213) 891-0700 Facsimile: (213) 896-0400 Attorneys for Plaintiff

COURTNEY C. HILL (SBN: 210143) cchill@grsm.com NORVIK AZARIAN (SBN: 325315) nazarian@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attorneys for Defendant

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CENTER, LLC, a California Limited Case No. 2:20-cv-03405-ODW Liability Company (RAOx)

Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER1

CALIFORNIA, INC., a California [DISCOVERY MATTER] Corporation; CIGNA HEALTH AND

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive Defendants. 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective 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. This action is likely to involve confidential, private and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential, private, and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, other commercially competitive information, protected health information including details regarding medical treatment and health information, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 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. 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; Local Civil 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. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: the instant federal action titled Avanguard Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc., et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:20-cv- 03405-ODW (RAOx). 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. CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items shall also mean information supplied in any form, or any portion thereof, that identifies an individual or subscriber in any manner and relates to the past, present, or future care, services, or supplies relating to the physical or mental health or condition of such individual or subscriber, the provision of health care to such individual or subscriber, or the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to such individual or subscriber. CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items shall include, but is not limited to, claim data, claim forms, grievances, appeals, or other documents or records that contain any patient health information required to be kept confidential under any state or federal law, including 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (see 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.501 & 160.103), and the following subscriber, patient, or member identifiers: a. names; b.

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

Avanguard Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Avanguard Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc. (Avanguard Surgery Center, LLC v. Cigna Healthcare of California, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Royston v. Horner
24 A. 25 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1892)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)