Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America

District Court, C.D. California·Decided March 24, 2022·No. 8:21-cv-00291·Unknown

Opinion

Case 8'21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE Document 26 Filed 03/24/22 Page1lof16 Page ID#:175 ERIC KELLY, Case No. 8:21-cv-00291-DOC-JDE Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER ] v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE DOES T'ihrough 10, inclusive, Defendants. Based on the Parties’ Stipulation (Dkt. 25), and for good cause shown 90 therein, the Court finds and orders as follows. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 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 1996 (“HIPAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 1330, et seg., California Health & Safety Code § 1280.15, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 56, et seg., Welfare & Institutions Code § 5000, et seg.; business or financial information; information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties); and 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. 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- 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), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. STNPULATIED PROTECTIVE ORDER

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

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

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

Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America (Eric Kelly v. Unum Life Insurance Company of America) — 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)