Dameron Hospital Association v. GEICO General Insurance Company

District Court, E.D. California·Decided December 18, 2025·No. 2:24-cv-01379·Unknown

Opinion

JORDAN S. ALTURA (SBN: 209431) jaltura@grsm.com ADELLE GREENFIELD (SBN: 301514) agreenfield@grsm.com 315 Pacific Avenue San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

ALAN FASSONAKI (SBN: 309147) alan.fassonaki@yahoo.com 5550 TOPANGA CYN. BLVD., SUITE 200 WOODLAND HILLS, CA 91367-6496 P: (818) 592-0333

Attorneys for Plaintiff DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION DAMERON HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, a Case No. 2:24-cv-01379-DJC-AC California Non-Profit Association, [PROPOSED] Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation, Defendant.

1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Disclosure and discovery in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, commercially sensitive, personally identifiable information (“PII”), or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c)(3), the parties believe that the Terms and Conditions set forth herein should be entered by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties, because the terms will pertain solely to the production and use of discovery in this action, will set forth procedures by which the parties can expeditiously resolve confidentiality or privilege-related disputes before the Court, and will govern potential discovery from third parties who would not otherwise be subject to a private agreement. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 1.2 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve trade secrets and other valuable commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, information regarding individuals subject to the standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), or other similar statutory or regulatory privacy protections, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Specifically, this action is likely to involve the production of business records which contain Personally Identifiable Information (“PII”) and Protected Health Information (“PHI”) of non-party patients, insureds, and beneficiaries, including names, addresses, birth dates, telephone numbers, social security numbers, health plan beneficiary numbers, Health Identification Code (“HIC”) Numbers, claim numbers, policy numbers, certificate/license numbers, vehicle identifiers and serial numbers, license plate numbers, biometric identifiers, full face photographic images and any comparable images, medical treatment records, medical payment records, and other individually identifiable health information. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. / / / / / / 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “Confidential Material”: information (regardless of 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. Confidential Material is limited to: (a) information regarding individuals subject to the standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”), or other similar statutory or regulatory privacy protections; and (b) information that has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner and that constitutes protectable trade secrets as defined by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 3426.1, or similarly protected, proprietary, non-public financial, technical, or commercial information. (c) information subject to protection under California’s Insurance Information and Privacy Protection Act (California Insurance Code § 791 to § 791.29), or other similar statutory or regulatory privacy protections; and (d) information entitled to confidential treatment under existing California law, including personal or private information implicated by Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal. 4th 1 and Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1991) 230 Cal. App. 3d 59, and information protected by the constitutional right of privacy established in Article 1, Section 1 of the California Constitution. 2.3 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL”. / / / 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this action. 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal en

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

Dameron Hospital Association v. GEICO General Insurance Company, (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Dameron Hospital Association v. GEICO General Insurance Company (Dameron Hospital Association v. GEICO General Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn.
865 P.2d 633 (California Supreme Court, 1994)
Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
230 Cal. App. 3d 59 (California Court of Appeal, 1991)