Continental Casualty Company v. Guzman

District Court, E.D. California·Decided August 20, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-01975·Unknown

Opinion

1 CNA COVERAGE LITIGATION GROUP ROBERT C. CHRISTENSEN (SBN 151296) 2 Email: robert.christensen@cna.com 555 12th Street, Suite 600 3 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: 510.645.2306 4 Facsimile: 510.645.2323

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CONTINTENTAL CASUALTY CASE NO.: 2:19-cv-01975-KJM-CKD COMPANY, 11 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 12 vs.

13 LETHESIA GUZMAN; FAAFETAI AND 14 RACHEL TALIAOA; L. M., a minor by and Complaint Filed: 9/27/19 through her Guardian Ad Litem THOMAS 15 NICHOLS; D. M., and N. M., by and through their Guardian Ad Litem, Patricia Montejano,

16 and DOES 1-10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or 21 private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 22 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby 23 stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 24 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 25 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the 26 limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 27 principles. 28 / / / 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve disclosure of proprietary information from non-parties 3 including, but not limited to, Sprint Corporation for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 5 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, automobile 6 fleet management policies, guidelines and other related materials that is not otherwise generally 7 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure 8 under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 9 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 10 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 11 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 12 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 13 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 14 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 15 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 16 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 17 part of the public record of this case. 18 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 19 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated 20 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 21 Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 22 when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 23 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings 24 and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown 25 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 26 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), 27 Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 28 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 1 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 2 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 3 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 4 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 5 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 6 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling 7 reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be 8 narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors 9 Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or 10 thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, 11 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and 12 legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the 13 application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 14 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety 15 will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be 16 redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 17 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file 18 documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not 19 feasible. 20 2. DEFINITIONS 21 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit, Case No. 2:19-cv-01975-KJM-CKD. 22 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 23 information or items under this Order. 24 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 25 generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 26 of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 27 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support 28 staff). 1 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 2 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 3 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 4 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 5 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 6 responses to discovery in this matter. 7 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 8 the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 9 consultant in this Action. 10 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 11 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 12 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal 13 entity not named as a Party to this action. 14 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this 15 Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have appeared in this 16 Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that has appeared on behalf of that 17 party, and includes support staff.

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

Continental Casualty Company v. Guzman, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Continental Casualty Company v. Guzman (Continental Casualty Company v. Guzman) — 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)