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

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 18, 2020
Docket2:19-cv-02309
StatusUnknown

This text of California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc. (California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

Opinion

2 cScYhLilVl@IAgr JsOmO.c o (mSBN: 308236) sjoo@grsm.com 3 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 633 West Fifth Street, 52nd Floor 4 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 576-5000 5 Facsimile: (213) 680-4470 6 Attorneys for Defendants UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC. and 7 UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY 8 GARY L. TYSCH (SBN: 128389) gltysch@pacbell.net 9 LAW OFFICES OF GARY L. TYSCH 16133 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 580 10 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: (818) 995-9555 11 Facsimile: (818) 995-9550 12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs CALIFORNIA SURGERY CENTER, INC. and 13 CALIFORNIA SPINE AND PAIN INSTITUTE 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16 17 CALIFORNIA SURGERY CENTER, ) CASE NO. 2:19-cv-02309-DDP 18 INC. and CALIFORNIA SPINE AND ) (AFMx) PAIN INSTITUTE, ) District Judge: Hon. Dean D. 19 ) Pregerson Plaintiff, ) Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alexander F. 20 ) MacKinnon vs. ) 21 UNITEDHEALTHCARE, INC.; ) 22 UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE ) REVISED STIPULATION AND COMPANY; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, ) [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE 23 ) ORDER Defendants. ) 24 ) ) DISCOVERY MATTER 25 ) ) 26 ) ) 27 ) ) 28 2 SURGERY CENTER, INC. and CALIFORNIA SPINE AND PAIN INSTITUTE 3 (collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) and Defendants UNITEDHEALTHCARE, 4 INC. and UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY (collectively 5 referred to as “UHC”) (Plaintiffs and UHC are together referred to as “the 6 Parties”), by and through their counsel of record, that in order to facilitate the 7 exchange of information and documents which may be subject to confidentiality 8 limitations on disclosure due to federal laws, state laws, and privacy rights, the 9 Parties stipulate as follows: 10 1. In this Stipulation and Protective Order, the words set forth below 11 shall have the following meanings: 12 a. “Proceeding” means the above-entitled proceeding, United 13 States District Court for the Central District of California Case No. 2:19-cv- 14 02309-DDP (AFMx); 15 b. “Court” means District Judge Dean D. Pregerson, Magistrate 16 Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon, or any other Judge to which this Proceeding may 17 be assigned, including Court staff participating in such proceedings. 18 c. “Confidential” means any information which is in the 19 possession of a Designating Party who believes in good faith that such information 20 is entitled to confidential treatment under applicable law, including any patient 21 health information required to be kept confidential under any state or federal law, 22 including 45 C.F.R. Parts 160 and 164 promulgated pursuant to the Health 23 Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (see 45 C.F.R. §§ 164.501 & 24 160.103). 25 d. “Confidential Materials” means any Documents, Testimony or 26 Information as defined below designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the 27 provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order and includes, but is not limited 28 to, materials designated as “Attorney-Eyes Only”. “Attorney-Eyes Only” means any Confidential Materials which 2 information should not be disclosed to anyone other than a Party’s attorney. 3 f. “Designating Party” means the Party that designates Materials 4 as “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only”. 5 g. “Disclose” or “Disclosed” or “Disclosure” means to reveal, 6 divulge, give, or make available Materials, or any part thereof, or any information 7 contained therein. 8 h. “Documents” means (i) any “Writing,” “Original,” and 9 “Duplicate” as those terms are defined by California Evidence Code Sections 250, 10 255, and 260, which have been produced in discovery in this Proceeding by any 11 person, and (ii) any copies, reproductions, or summaries of all or any part of the 12 foregoing. 13 i. “Information” means the content of Documents or Testimony. 14 j. “Testimony” means all depositions, declarations or other 15 testimony taken or used in this Proceeding. 16 2. The Designating Party shall have the right to designate as 17 “Confidential” any Documents, Testimony or Information that the Designating 18 Party in good faith believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to 19 confidential treatment under applicable law. 20 3. The Designating Party shall have the right to designate as “Attorney- 21 Eyes Only” any Confidential Materials that the Designating Party in good faith 22 believes to contain non-public information that is entitled to confidential treatment 23 under applicable law and that which should not be seen by any person other than a 24 Party’s attorney. 25 4. The entry of this Stipulation and Protective Order does not alter, 26 waive, modify, or abridge any right, privilege or protection otherwise available to 27 any Party with respect to the discovery of matters, including but not limited to any 28 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. 2 “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” must be clearly so designated before the 3 Document, Testimony or Information is Disclosed or produced. The parties may 4 agree that the case name and number are to be part of the “Confidential” or 5 “Attorney-Eyes Only” designation. The “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” 6 designation should not obscure or interfere with the legibility of the designated 7 Information. 8 a. For Documents (apart from transcripts of depositions or other 9 pretrial or trial proceedings), the Designating Party must affix the legend 10 “Confidential” and/or redact or obscure all confidential information on each page 11 of any Document containing such designated Confidential Material. 12 b. For Testimony given in depositions the Designating Party may 13 either: 14 i. identify on the record, before the close of the deposition, 15 as “Confidential” Testimony, by specifying all portions of the 16 Testimony that qualify as “Confidential;” or 17 ii. designate the entirety of the Testimony at the deposition 18 as “Confidential” (before the deposition is concluded) with the right 19 to identify more specific portions of the Testimony as to which 20 protection is sought within 30 days following receipt of the 21 deposition transcript. In circumstances where portions of the 22 deposition Testimony are designated for protection, the transcript 23 pages containing “Confidential” Information may be separately 24 bound by the court reporter, who must affix to the top of each page 25 the legend “Confidential,” as instructed by the Designating Party. 26 c. For Information produced in some form other than 27 Documents, and for any other tangible items, including, without limitation, 28 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 2 the Information or item warrant protection, the Designating Party, to the extent 3 practicable, shall identify the “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” portions. 4 6. The inadvertent production by any of the undersigned Parties or non- 5 Parties to the Proceedings of any Document, Testimony or Information during 6 discovery in this Proceeding without a “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” 7 designation, shall be without prejudice to any claim that such item is 8 “Confidential” or “Attorney-Eyes Only” and such Party shall not be held to have 9 waived any rights by such inadvertent production.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
California Surgery Center, Inc. v. Unitedhealthcare, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/california-surgery-center-inc-v-unitedhealthcare-inc-cacd-2020.