Go Maps, Inc. v. Insurance Claims Associates Agency Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 25, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-01973
StatusUnknown

This text of Go Maps, Inc. v. Insurance Claims Associates Agency Inc. (Go Maps, Inc. v. Insurance Claims Associates Agency Inc.) 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
Go Maps, Inc. v. Insurance Claims Associates Agency Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-01973-FLA-AGR Document 31 Filed 01/25/23 Page 1 of 22 Page ID #:273

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & G. David Rubin (SBN 181293) 1 SULLIVAN, LLP Andrew K. Aaronian (SBN 318245) Christopher Tayback (Bar No. 145532) LITCHFIELD CAVO LLP 2 christayback@quinnemanuel.com 2 North Lake Avenue, Suite 400 Ryan Landes (Bar No. 252642) Pasadena, CA 91101 3 ryanlandes@quinnemanuel.com Tel: (626) 683-1100 Matthew Arrow (Bar No. 338273) Fax: (626) 683-1113 4 matthewarrow@quinnemanuel.com Email: rubin@litchfieldcavo.com 865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor aaronian@litchfieldcavo.com 5 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 Telephone: (213) 443 3000 Attorneys for Defendant, 6 Facsimile: (213) 443 3100 INSURANCE CLAIMS ASSOCIATES AGENCY INC. 7 Stephen R. Neuwirth (admitted pro hac vice) 8 stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com David B. Adler (admitted pro hac vice) 9 davidadler@quinnemanuel.com 51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor 10 New York, New York 10010 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 11 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 12 Attorneys for Go Maps, Inc. 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 14 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 15 16 GO MAPS, INC., Case No. 2:22-CV-01973-FLA-AGR 17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE 18 ORDER vs. 19 NOTE CHANGES MADE BY INSURANCE CLAIMS ASSOCIATES COURT 20 AGENCY INC., 21 Defendant. The Hon. Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha 22 Trial Date: August 23, 2023 23 24 25 26 27 28 STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

11064-00003/13807980.1 Case 2:22-cv-01973-FLA-AGR Document 31 Filed 01/25/23 Page 2 of 22 Page ID #:274

1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATION 1 2 Discovery in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, 3 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 4 use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 8 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. 1.1 GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 12 This action may involve confidential, financial, and/or proprietary 13 information belonging to the parties or third parties, including personal identifying 14 information or other insurance claim information for insureds, for which special 15 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 16 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 17 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 18 information, information relating to the parties’ international distribution practices, 19 information regarding customers and prices, information regarding confidential 20 business practices, or other confidential, commercial information (including 21 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 22 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 23 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 24 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 25 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 26 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 27 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 28 -1- STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

11064-00003/13807980.1 Case 2:22-cv-01973-FLA-AGR Document 31 Filed 01/25/23 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:275

1 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 2 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 3 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 4 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 5 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non–public 6 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 7 case. 1.2 FILING UNDER SEAL PROCEDURE ACKNOWLEDGMENT 8 9 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 11 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79–5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 12 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court 13 to file material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 15 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non–dispositive motions, 16 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal, See Kamakana v. City and 17 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 18 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), and a specific showing of good 19 cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, 20 must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. 21 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 22 CONFIDENTIAL or CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does 23 not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that 24 the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 25 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 26 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 27 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 28 -2- STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

11064-00003/13807980.1 Case 2:22-cv-01973-FLA-AGR Document 31 Filed 01/25/23 Page 4 of 22 Page ID #:276

1 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 2 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 3 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 4 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 5 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 6 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 7 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 9 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 11 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 12 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 13 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 14 15 2.1 Action: the above–captioned case. 16 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non–Party that challenges the designation 17 of information or items under this Order. 18 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 19 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 20 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 21 the Good Cause Statement.

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Go Maps, Inc. v. Insurance Claims Associates Agency Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/go-maps-inc-v-insurance-claims-associates-agency-inc-cacd-2023.