California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided February 18, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-02309·Unknown

Opinion

cScYhLilVl@IAgr JsOmO.c o (mSBN: 308236) sjoo@grsm.com 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 Attorneys for Defendants UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC. and GARY L. TYSCH (SBN: 128389) gltysch@pacbell.net 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 580 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 995-9555 Facsimile: (818) 995-9550 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CALIFORNIA SURGERY CENTER, INC. and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA SURGERY CENTER, ) CASE NO. 2:19-cv-02309-DDP INC. and CALIFORNIA SPINE AND ) (AFMx) PAIN INSTITUTE, ) District Judge: Hon. Dean D. ) Pregerson Plaintiff, ) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alexander F. ) MacKinnon vs. ) UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; ) UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE ) REVISED STIPULATION AND COMPANY; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, ) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ) ORDER Defendants. ) ) ) DISCOVERY MATTER ) ) ) ) ) ) SURGERY CENTER, INC. and CALIFORNIA SPINE AND PAIN INSTITUTE (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC. and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively referred to as “UHC”) (Plaintiffs and UHC are together referred to as “the Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, that in order to facilitate the exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, the Parties stipulate as follows: 1. In this Stipulation and Protective Order, the words set forth below shall have the following meanings: a. “Proceeding” means the above-entitled proceeding, United States District Court for the Central District of California Case No. 2:19-cv- 02309-DDP (AFMx); b. “Court” means District Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon, or any other Judge to which this Proceeding may be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. c. “Confidential” means any information which is in the possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law, including 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). d. “Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony or Information as defined below designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order and includes, but is not limited to, materials designated as “Attorney-Eyes Only”. “Attorney-Eyes Only” means any Confidential Materials which information should not be disclosed to anyone other than a Party’s attorney. f. “Designating Party” means the Party that designates Materials as “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only”. g. “Disclose” or “Disclosed” or “Disclosure” means to reveal, divulge, give, or make available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information contained therein. h. “Documents” means (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and “Duplicate” as those terms are defined by California Evidence Code Sections 250, 255, and 260, which have been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any person, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or summaries of all or any part of the foregoing. i. “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony. j. “Testimony” means all depositions, declarations or other testimony taken or used in this Proceeding. 2. The Designating Party shall have the right to designate as “Confidential” any Documents, Testimony or Information that the Designating Party in good faith believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law. 3. The Designating Party shall have the right to designate as “Attorney- Eyes Only” any Confidential Materials that the Designating Party in good faith believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law and that which should not be seen by any person other than a Party’s attorney. 4. The entry of this Stipulation and Protective Order does not alter, waive, modify, or abridge any right, privilege or protection otherwise available to any Party with respect to the discovery of matters, including but not limited to any Party’s right to assert the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product doctrine, or other privileges, or any Party’s right to contest any such assertion. “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” must be clearly so designated before the Document, Testimony or Information is Disclosed or produced. The parties may agree that the case name and number are to be part of the “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” designation. The “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” designation should not obscure or interfere with the legibility of the designated Information. a. For Documents (apart from transcripts of depositions or other pretrial or trial proceedings), the Designating Party must affix the legend “Confidential” and/or redact or obscure all confidential information on each page of any Document containing such designated Confidential Material. b. For Testimony given in depositions the Designating Party may either: i. identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, as “Confidential” Testimony, by specifying all portions of the Testimony that qualify as “Confidential;” or ii. designate the entirety of the Testimony at the deposition as “Confidential” (before the deposition is concluded) with the right to identify more specific portions of the Testimony as to which protection is sought within 30 days following receipt of the deposition transcript. In circumstances where portions of the deposition Testimony are designated for protection, the transcript pages containing “Confidential” Information may be separately bound by the court reporter, who must affix to the top of each page the legend “Confidential,” as instructed by the Designating Party. c. For Information produced in some form other than Documents, and for any other tangible items, including, without limitation, compact discs or DVDs, the Designating Party must affix in a prominent place on the exterior of the container or containers in which the Information or item is the Information or item warrant protection, the Designating Party, to the extent practicable, shall identify the “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” portions. 6. The inadvertent production by any of the undersigned Parties or non- Parties to the Proceedings of any Document, Testimony or Information during discovery in this Proceeding without a “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” designation, shall be without prejudice to any claim that such item is “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” and such Party shall not be held to have waived any rights by such inadvertent production. In the event that any Document, Testimony or Information that is subject to a “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” designation is inadvertently produced without such designation, the Party that inadvertently produced the document shall give written notice of such inadvertent production within twenty (20) days of discovery of the inadvertent production, together with a further copy of the subject Document, Testimony or Information designated as “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” (the “Inadvertent Production Notice”). Upon receipt of such Inadvertent Production Notice, the Party that received the inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information shall promptly destroy the inadvertently produced Document, Testimony or Information and all copies thereof, or, at the expense of the producing Party, return such together

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

California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2020).

California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc. (California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc.) — 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)