Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 24, 2022
Docket8:21-cv-00291
StatusUnknown

This text of Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America) 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
Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 8'21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE Document 26 Filed 03/24/22 Page1lof16 Page ID#:175 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 | ERIC KELLY, Case No. 8:21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE 13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 |] v. 15 | UNUM LIFE INSURANCE 16 | DOES T'ihrough 10, inclusive, 17 Defendants. 18 19 Based on the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 25), and for good cause shown 90 || therein, the Court finds and orders as follows. 21 22 || 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 23 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 24 || proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 25 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be 26 || warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 27 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 28 || Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to -1- SMPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 8'21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE Document 26 Filed 03/24/22 Page2of16 Page ID #:176

1 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 2 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 3 || under the applicable legal principles. 4 || 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 5 This action involves proprietary information for which special protection 6 || from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this 7 || action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information 8 || consist of, among other things, private health or personal information protected 9 || from disclosure under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 10 || 1996 (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1330, et seg., California Health & Safety Code 11 || § 1280.15, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. 12 || Code § 56, et seg., Welfare & Institutions Code § 5000, et seg.; business or 13 || financial information; information regarding confidential business practices, or 14 || other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 15 || information implicating privacy rights of third parties); and information otherwise 16 || generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 17 || protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 18 || or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 19 || prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 20 || adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 21 || ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 22 || preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 23 || litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 24 || justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 25 || designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 26 || without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 27 || manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 28 || this case. -2- STNPULATIED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 8'21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE Document 26 Filed 03/24/22 Page 3of16 Page ID#:177

1 || 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this 3 || Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 4 || under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 5 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 6 || to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right 7 || of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- § || dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See 9 || Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), 10 || Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- 11 || Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even 12 || stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 13 || good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 14 || justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to 15 || file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material 16 || as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by 17 || declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 18 || confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 19 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 20 || then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 21 || the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 22 || protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 23 || 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 24 || or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling 25 || reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing 26 || order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 27 || under seal must be provided by declaration. 28 STNPULATIED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 8'21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE Document 26 Filed 03/24/22 Page 4of16 Page ID#:178

l Any document that 1s not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 3 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 4 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 5 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 6 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 || 4. DEFINITIONS 8 4.1 Action: Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, and 9 | DOES I through 10, inclusive, U.S. District Court for the Central District of 10 || California, Case No. 8:21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE. 11 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 12 || designation of information or items under this Order. 13 4.3. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 14 || how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 15 || protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including but not limited to, 16 || information the Producing Party believes in good faith to be protected under 17 || relevant provisions of applicable law regarding confidential business, competitive 18 || or privacy information, trade secret information, non-public financial or business 19 || information, or private health or personal information protected from disclosure 20 || under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (“HIPAA”), 21 || 42 U.S.C.

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)
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)
Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/eric-kelly-v-unum-life-insurance-company-of-america-cacd-2022.