Brighton Trustees, LLC v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 6, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-04210·Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4

5 6 7 10 11 BRIGHTON TRUSTEES, LLC, on Case No. 2:19-cv-04210-CAS-GJSx behalf of and as trustee for COOK 12 STREET MASTER TRUST and [PROPOSED] STIPULATED DIAMOND LS TRUST; and BANK OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 UTAH, solely as securities intermediary for COOK STREET MASTER TRUST 14 and DIAMOND LS TRUST,

15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. COMPANY, 18 Defendant. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential and 3 proprietary actuarial, business, technical, and financial information of Plaintiffs 4 Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Cook Street Master Trust and 5 Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities intermediary for Cook 6 Street Master Trust and Diamond LS Trust (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) and Defendant 7 Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“TLIC”) for which special protection from 8 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 9 may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and TLIC hereby stipulate to and petition 10 the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties 11 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 12 responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 13 use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 14 treatment under the applicable legal principles. 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 17 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 18 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 19 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 20 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 21 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 22 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 23 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 24 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 25 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 26 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 27 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 28 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 1 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 2 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 3 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 4 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 5 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 6 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 7 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 8 record of this case. 9 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 11 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected 12 Material), below, that this Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 13 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 and the Court’s Guide to Electronically 14 Filing Under Seal Documents in Civil Cases set forth the procedures that must be 15 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 16 the Court to file material under seal. 17 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 18 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 19 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 20 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 21 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 22 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 23 good cause showing). A specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 24 proper evidentiary support and legal justification must be made with respect to 25 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 26 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL,” or “HIGHLY 27 CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” does not—without the 28 submission of competent evidence by declaration establishing that the material 1 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 2 protectable—constitute good cause. 3 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 4 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 5 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 6 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 7 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 8 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 9 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 10 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 11 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 12 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 13 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 14 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 15 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 16 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 17 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Acknowledgment: the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to be Bound” 20 form attached as Exhibit A to this Order. 21 2.2 Action: Brighton Trustees, LLC, on behalf of and as trustee for Cook 22 Street Master Trust and Diamond LS Trust; and Bank of Utah, solely as securities 23 intermediary for Cook Street Master Trust and Diamond LS Trust v. Transamerica 24 Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-04210-CAS-GJSx. 25 2.3 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 26 of information or items under this Order. 27 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Confidential proprietary or 28 commercially sensitive business and financial information, trade secrets, and 1 personal information which is not generally known or publicly available and which 2 the Designating Party would not normally reveal to third parties or information that 3 otherwise meets the standard for protection set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal 4 Rules of Civil Procedure. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 5 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 6 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential non-public 7 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 8 Action. 9 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 10 their support staff).

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

Brighton Trustees, LLC v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Brighton Trustees, LLC v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Brighton Trustees, LLC v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company) — 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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)