Emsurgcare v. Unitedhealthcare Insurance Co.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 14, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-04612
StatusUnknown

This text of Emsurgcare v. Unitedhealthcare Insurance Co. (Emsurgcare v. Unitedhealthcare Insurance Co.) 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
Emsurgcare v. Unitedhealthcare Insurance Co., (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP LAW OFFICES OF Kathleen Cahill Slaught (SBN 168129) JONATHAN A. STIEGLITZ 2 kslaught@seyfarth.com Jonathan A. Stieglitz (SBN 3 560 Mission Street, 31st Floor 278028) San Francisco, California 94105 jonathanstieglitz@gmail.com 4 Telephone: (415) 397-2823 11845 W. Olympic Blvd., Ste. Facsimile: (415) 397-8549 800 5 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Ryan R. Tikker (SBN 312860) Tel: (323) 979-2063 6 rtikker@seyfarth.com Fax: (323) 488-6478 7 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, California 90067 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 8 Telephone: (310) 277-7200 EMSURGCARE AND Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 EMERGENCY SURGICAL 9 ASSISTANT Attorneys for Defendant OXFORD 10 HEALTH INSURANCE, INC. 11

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 16

17 EMSURGCARE and EMERGENCY SURGICAL Case No. 2:24-cv-04612-SVW- 18 ASSISTANT, SSC 19 Plaintiff(s), v. 20 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE OXFORD HEALTH ORDER1 21 INSURANCE, INC. Defendant(s). 22

23 1. INTRODUCTION 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Stephanie S. 1 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 2 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 3 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 4 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 6 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 7 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 8 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 9 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 10 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 11 legal principles. 12 1.2 Good Cause Statement. 13 This action is likely to involve confidential health information, 14 trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, 15 development, commercial, financial, and/or proprietary information for 16 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 17 purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 18 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among 19 other things, confidential health information, confidential business or 20 financial information, information regarding confidential business 21 practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial 22 information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 23 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 24 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under 25 state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. 26 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 27 1 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 2 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 3 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 4 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 5 ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this 6 matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 7 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 8 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 9 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 10 not be part of the public record of this case. 11 12 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 13 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 14 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 15 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 16 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 17 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 18 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 19 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 20 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 21 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 22 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 23 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 24 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 25 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 26 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 27 1 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 2 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 3 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 4 establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 5 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 6 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 7 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 8 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 9 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 10 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 11 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 12 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 13 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 14 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 15 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 16 seal must be provided by declaration. 17 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 18 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 19 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 20 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 21 22 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 23 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 24 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 25 26 2. DEFINITIONS 27 2.1 Action: Emsurgcare and Emergency Surgical Assistant v. 1 Oxford Health Insurance, Inc., 2:24-cv-04612-SVW-SSC. 2 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 3 designation of information or items under this Order. 4 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 5 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 6 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 7 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 8 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 9 well as their support staff). 10 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates 11 information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to 12 discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 13 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, 14 regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or 15 maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and 16 tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or 17 responses to discovery in this matter. 18 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in 19 a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or 20 its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action.

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Phillips v. General Motors Corporation
307 F.3d 1206 (Ninth Circuit, 2002)
Ramírez v. Arlequín
447 F.3d 19 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Emsurgcare v. Unitedhealthcare Insurance Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/emsurgcare-v-unitedhealthcare-insurance-co-cacd-2025.