Duncan v. Primerica Life Ins. Co.

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 3, 2022·No. 2:21-cv-01106·Unknown

Opinion

1 OPHIR JOHNA (SBN 228193) Ojohna@maynardcooper.com 2 MAYNARD COOPER & GALE LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard 3 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.596.4500 4 Attorneys for Defendant 5 Primerica Life Insurance Company 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 11 SHIRLEY DUNCAN Case No. 2:21-cv-01106-JAM-DMC

12 Plaintiff, (Hon. John A. Mendez)

13 v. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 14 PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE ORDER COMPANY, 15 [L.R. 141.1(b)(1)] Defendant. 16 Complaint Filed: June 22, 2021 17

18 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 19 Discovery and disclosures in this action are likely to involve production of 20 confidential, proprietary and/or private information for which special protection 21 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this 22 litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and 23 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 25 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure 26 and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to 27 confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 28 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve trade secrets and/or other confidential and 3 proprietary materials, such as records reflecting operational policies and procedures, 4 underwriting guidelines, claims manuals and procedures, other company manuals, 5 private information pertaining to individuals, etc., for which special protection from 6 public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action 7 is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist 8 of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information 9 regarding confidential business practices and procedures, or other confidential 10 research, development, or commercial information (including information 11 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally 12 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 13 disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 14 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution 15 of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 16 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 17 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the 18 conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 19 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 20 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 21 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it 22 has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause 23 why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 24 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 25 SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 28 under seal; Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 1 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 2 material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 8 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 9 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 10 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 11 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 12 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the 13 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 14 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 15 protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 18 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 19 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 20 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 21 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 22 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 23 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 24 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 27 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 28 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 1 be filed. 2 3 2. DEFINITIONS 4 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 5 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 6 of information or items under this Order. 7 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 8 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 9 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 10 the Good Cause Statement. 11 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 their support staff). 13 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 15 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 16 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 17 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 18 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 19 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 20 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 21 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 22 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 23 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 24 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 25 counsel. 26 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 27 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 28 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party 1 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and have 2 appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm that 3 has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff.

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

Duncan v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Duncan v. Primerica Life Ins. Co. (Duncan v. Primerica Life Ins. Co.) — 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)