Henkels and McCoy, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 29, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-07210
StatusUnknown

This text of Henkels and McCoy, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company (Henkels and McCoy, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company) 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
Henkels and McCoy, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2:21-cv-07210-RSWL-RAO Document 26 Filed 09/29/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1071

1 RAMIRO MORALES, # 167947 rmorales@mfrlegal.com 2 ELIZABETH B. CELNIKER, #211652 ecelniker@mfrlegal.com 3 MORALES FIERRO & REEVES 2151 Salvio Street, Suite 280 4 Concord, CA 94520 Telephone: (925) 288-1776 5 Facsimile: (925) 288-1856

6 Attorneys for Plaintiffs HENKELS & MCCOY, INC. and ZURICH 7 AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 HENKELS & MCCOY, INC. and ) CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-07210 RSWL 12 ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE ) (RAOx) COMPANY, ) 13 ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiffs, ) ORDER1 14 ) v. ) 15 ) UNITED SPECIALTY INSURANCE ) 16 COMPANY, ) ) 17 Defendants. ) ) 18 ) 19 20 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 23 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 24 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 25 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 26 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that 27 28 1 This Stipulated Protectiv e Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. 17 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-07210 RSWL (RAOx) Case 2:21-cv-07210-RSWL-RAO Document 26 Filed 09/29/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:1072

1 the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 2 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 3 legal principles. 4 5 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 6 This action is likely to involve information reflective of attorney-client 7 privileged matter and/or attorney work product as reflected in attorney’s fees invoices 8 relating to an insured’s defense in an underlying lawsuit, in addition to trade secret or 9 commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special 10 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 11 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 12 and information consist of, among other things, copies of attorney’s fee invoices from 13 an underlying lawsuit, confidential business or financial information, information 14 regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 15 development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 16 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or 17 which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal 18 statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the 19 flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 20 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 21 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 22 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 23 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 24 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 25 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and 26 that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 27 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be 28 part of the public record of this case. 18 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-07210 RSWL (RAOx) Case 2:21-cv-07210-RSWL-RAO Document 26 Filed 09/29/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:1073

1 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 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 and 5 the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 6 material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 9 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 10 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 11 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 12 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 13 good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons 14 with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 15 Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation 16 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the 17 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 18 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 19 protectable—constitute good cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 22 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 23 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 24 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 25 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 26 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 27 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 28 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 19 PROOF OF SERVICE CASE NO.: 2:21-cv-07210 RSWL (RAOx) Case 2:21-cv-07210-RSWL-RAO Document 26 Filed 09/29/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:1074

1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 3 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 4 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall 5 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 6 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 8 2. DEFINITIONS 9 2.1 Action: Henkels & McCoy, Inc., et al. v. United Specialty Insurance 10 Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-07210 RSWL (RAOx) in the United States District 11 Court for the Central District of California. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 13 of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection 16 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good 17 Cause Statement. 18 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 19 their support staff).

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)
Henkels and McCoy, Inc. v. United Specialty Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/henkels-and-mccoy-inc-v-united-specialty-insurance-company-cacd-2022.