Charlene Woodward v. Safeco Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedAugust 11, 2025
Docket5:24-cv-01249
StatusUnknown

This text of Charlene Woodward v. Safeco Insurance Company (Charlene Woodward v. Safeco Insurance Company) 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
Charlene Woodward v. Safeco Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1|| NICHOLAS J. BOOS (SBN 233399) nboos @maynardnexsen.com 2|| JAMES L. ELLISON (SBN 302372) jellison@maynardnexsen.com 3 AYNARD NEXSEN LLP 201 California Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 646-4700 5 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 6|| Attorneys for Defendant FIRST NATIONAL INSURANCE 71| COMPANY OF AMERICA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHARLENE WOODWARD, AI Case No. 5:24—cv—01249 KK (SPx) WOODWARD, CHARLES 12 WOODWARD, MADLYNE STIPULATED PROTECTIVE WOODWARD, ORDER 13 Plaintiffs, 14 Vv. 15 SAFECO INSURANCE COMPANY, 16 LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, FIRST NATIONAL 17 INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 18 Defendants. 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, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 7 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 8 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 9 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 10 under the applicable legal principles. 11 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 13 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 14 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 15 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 16 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 17 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 19 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 20 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 21 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 22 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 23 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 24 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 25 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 26 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 27 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 1 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 2 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 3 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 4 of the public record of this case. 5 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 6 SEAL 7 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 8 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 9 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 10 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 11 to file material under seal. 12 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 13 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 14 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 15 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 16 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 17 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 18 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 19 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 20 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 21 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 22 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 23 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 24 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 25 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 26 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 27 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 1|| 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 2|| or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 3|| seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 4|| and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 5|| supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 6|| declaration. 7 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 8|| its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 9|| 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 12|| entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 13]) 2. DEFINITIONS 14 2.1 Action: Charlene Woodward, et al. v. Safeco Insurance Company, et 15|| al., United States District Court for the Central District of California, Case No. 16|| 5:24-cv—01249 KK (SPx). 17 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 18|| designation of information or items under this Order. 19 2.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 20|| 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. 23 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 24}| their support staff). 25 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 26|| items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless

1 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 2 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 3 or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 4 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 5 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 6 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 7 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 8 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 9 counsel. 10 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 11 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Charlene Woodward v. Safeco Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charlene-woodward-v-safeco-insurance-company-cacd-2025.