Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. Progressive Power Group Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 17, 2019
Docket8:19-cv-00844
StatusUnknown

This text of Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. Progressive Power Group Inc. (Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. Progressive Power Group 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
Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. Progressive Power Group Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Opinion

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 HOMELAND INSURANCE Case No.: 8:19-cv-844-AG (JDEx) 12 COMPANY OF NEW YORK,

13 Plaintiff, 14 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 15 vs. ORDER

16 PROGRESSIVE POWER GROUP, 17 INC., et al.,

18 Defendant(s). 19 ROSS ALAN BUTCHER, et al., 20

21 Cross Claimant(s), vs. 22

23 STATE FARM MUTUAL 24 INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,

25 Cross Defendant(s). 26 Based on the parties’ stipulation (Dkt. 43), and good cause appearing 27 therefor, the Court finds and orders as follows: 1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than pursuing this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 6 Court to 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 from 9 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 10 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 11 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 The primary issue in this action is the existence of coverage under several 13 different liability insurance policies for an underlying liability lawsuit against 14 Defendants Ross Butcher and Progressive Power Group, Inc. (“PPG”) that is 15 currently pending in the State of Utah, entitled Ryan Butcher v. Ross Butcher, 16 et al., Millard County District Court, Case No. 190700008 (the “Underlying 17 Action”). 18 Defendants Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (“Nationwide”) and 19 State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”) are 20 presently defending Ross Butcher and PPG in the Underlying Action pursuant 21 to two different liability insurance policies. Nationwide and State Farm have 22 been defending the Underlying Action since February 2019. Thus, the claim file 23 documents maintained by Nationwide and State Farm pertaining to the 24 automobile accident at issue in the Underlying Action contain sensitive 25 information pertaining to the defense of the Underlying Action, such as 26 assessments of liability, confidential communications with Ross Butcher, and 27 discussions about defense litigation strategy. The parties agree that this 1 information is discoverable for purposes of the present coverage action pending 2 before this Court. However, Nationwide and State Farm do not want the 3 Plaintiff in the Underlying Action (Ryan Butcher) to have access to this 4 information because that would severely compromise the ongoing defense. The 5 parties assert that California law recognizes that communications between a 6 liability insurer and its policyholder about a claim fall within the attorney-client 7 privilege.1 The parties contend that a liability insurer’s investigation and 8 handling of a claim against a policyholder, made for the primary purpose of 9 aiding in the defense of the claim, is privileged from disclosure to the claimant.2 10 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information in discovery, to facilitate 11 the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 12 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to 13 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material 14 in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the 15 end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 16 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 17 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 18 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 19 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not 20 be part of the public record of this case. 21 1 / See Scripps Health vs. Sup. Ct., 109 Cal. App. 4th 529, 535 (2003) (“It has long 22 been recognized that communications made by an insured to his ‘liability insurance 23 company, concerning an event which may be made the basis of a claim against him covered by the policy, is a privileged communication, as being between attorney and 24 client, if the policy requires the company to defend him through its attorney, and the 25 communication is intended for the information or assistance of the attorney in so defending him.’”). 26 2 / See Jessup v. Sup. Ct. in and for Santa Clara County, 151 Cal. App. 2d 102, 107 27 (1957) (explaining that such information remains “privileged until the possibility of 1 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 2 PROCEDURE 3 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that 4 this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 5 information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 6 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 7 permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong 8 presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and 9 records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause 10 must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 11 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 12 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 13 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 14 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 15 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must 16 be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. 17 The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as 18 CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence 19 by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal 20 qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 21 cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 23 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, 24 and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 25 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 26 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be 27 filed or introduced under seal, the party seeking protection must articulate 1 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the 2 requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application 3 to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 5 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions 6 can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for 7 public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise 8 protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks 9 to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of 10 why redaction is not feasible. 11 4. DEFINITIONS 12 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 13 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 14 designation of information or items under this Order.

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)
Jessup v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County
311 P.2d 177 (California Court of Appeal, 1957)
Scripps Health v. Superior Court
135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 126 (California Court of Appeal, 2003)
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)
Homeland Insurance Company of New York v. Progressive Power Group Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/homeland-insurance-company-of-new-york-v-progressive-power-group-inc-cacd-2019.