Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group

CourtDistrict Court, D. Nevada
DecidedMay 19, 2025
Docket2:24-cv-01459
StatusUnknown

This text of Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group (Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group, (D. Nev. 2025).

Opinion

1 David A. Carroll (Nevada Bar No. 7643) dcarroll@rrsc-law.com 2 Anthony J. DiRaimondo (Nevada Bar No. 10875) adiraimondo@rrsc-law.com 3 Robert E. Opdyke (Nevada State Bar No. 12841) ropdyke@rrsc-law.com 4 RICE REUTHER SULLIVAN & CARROLL, LLP 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1200 5 Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 Telephone: (702) 732-9099 6 Robert L. Wallan (Pro Hac Vice) 7 robert.wallan@pillsburylaw.com PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP 8 725 South Figueroa Street, 36th Floor Los Angeles, California 90017-5524 9 Telephone: (213) 488-7163

10 Attorneys for Defendant/Counterclaimant Findlay Management Group 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13

14 Houston Casualty Company, a foreign Case No. 2:24-cv-01459-GMN-NJK corporation, 15 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff/, [AMENDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH 16 COURT’S INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH vs. IN ECF NO. 43] 17 Findlay Management Group, a Nevada Domestic 18 Corporation, 19 Defendant. 20 Findlay Management Group, a Nevada Domestic Corporation, 21 Defendant/Counterclaimant, 22 vs. 23 Houston Casualty Company, a Texas 24 corporation; Syndicate 2623 and Syndicate 623 25 at Lloyd’s, English business entities; United Specialty Insurance Company, a Delaware 26 corporation; Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s London: Syndicate BRT 2987, an English 27 business entity; Syndicate KII 1618, an English business entity; Syndicate KLN 510, an English 1 English business entity; Syndicate AUL 1274, an English business entity; Syndicate AES 1225, an 2 English business entity; Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, a North Dakota corporation; 3 Endurance American Specialty Insurance 4 Company, a New York corporation; Lloyd’s Underwriters Syndicate No. 4444 CNP 5 (Acrisure); West Chester Surplus Lines Insurance Company (Chubb), 6 Counter-defendants. 7 8

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) and subject to the Court’s approval, this Stipulated Protective 9 Order (“Protective Order”) is entered into by and among Plaintiff and Counterdefendant Houston 10 Casualty Company (“HCC”) and Defendant and Counterclaimant Findlay Management Group 11 (“Findlay” and, together with HCC, the “Parties”).1 The Parties believe that judicial oversight of this 12 Stipulation is necessary and appropriate and there is good cause for entry of this Stipulation as a 13 Protective Order because, among other reasons: (i) the confidentiality obligations set forth herein 14 involve the rights of third parties such as insurance brokers (§ VI, infra), including that third parties 15 must “submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada for 16 enforcement of the Protective Order” (Ex. A hereto); (ii) this Stipulation contemplates motion 17 practice before the Court where disagreements may exist, including the challenges to confidentiality 18 designations made pursuant to this Protective Order (§ VIII, infra) and the Court having continuing 19 jurisdiction over certain issues, including preservation of materials (§ XI(9)); and (iii) this insurance 20 coverage dispute arises out of a cyber attack and the Parties believe the Court’s oversight will ensure 21 the utmost protection of confidential information that may be exchanged in discovery, which may 22 include the private/personal information of individuals (including social security numbers), non- 23 public financial information of Findlay, and/or non-public information of HCC and other insurers. 24 Further, the cyber attack giving rise to this insurance coverage dispute is also the subject matter of 25 26

27 1 On April 15, 2025, Findlay filed its Amended Counterclaim, which added certain excess insurance carriers as parties to this case. Although they have not yet formally appeared in the case, 1 two consolidated class actions pending before this Court. Smith v. Findlay Automotive, Inc., No. 2 2:24-cv-01226-RFB-EJY (Consolidated with No. 2:24-cv- 01227-APG-BNW)). A Stipulated 3 Protective Order was entered by Magistrate Judge Youchah in that consolidated class action. (ECF 4 No. 41, No. 2:24-cv-01226-RFB-EJY.) Since there is likely to be overlap between discovery across 5 the cases and the Court has already accepted judicial oversight of that stipulated protective order in 6 the consolidated class action, the Parties request there be the same judicial oversight of this case for 7 purposes of uniformity and consistency of results. 8 I. DEFINITIONS 9 1. Action. The above-captioned case, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay 10 Management Group, No. 2:24-cv-01459-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), as well as any subsequent caption 11 applying to the instant dispute. 12 2. Challenging Party. A Party that challenges the designation of Discovery Material as 13 “Confidential” under this Protective Order. 14 3. Confidential Discovery Material. Any Discovery Material (regardless of how it is 15 generated, stored, or maintained) designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this Protective 16 Order. 17 4. Designating Party. Any Party or Non-Party who designates information or items for 18 protection pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order. 19 5. Discovery Material. Any information provided in the course of discovery in this 20 Action including, but not limited to, information contained in documents, testimony taken at 21 depositions and transcripts thereof, deposition exhibits, and tangible things. 22 6. Inadvertently Disclosed Information. Information subject to a claim of attorney 23 client privilege, attorney work product protection, or other applicable privilege or protection, that a 24 Producing Party inadvertently discloses to a Receiving Party in this Action. 25 7. Non-Party. Any person or entity that is not a Party to the Action. 26 8. Party. Any named Party to the Action. 27 9. Producing Party. A Party or Non-Party that produces Discovery Material in the 1 10. Receiving Party. A Party that receives Discovery Material from a Producing Party in 2 the Action. 3 11. Exhibit A. The Non-Disclosure Agreement annexed as Exhibit A hereto. 4 II. SCOPE 5 12. The protections conferred by this Protective Order cover not only Confidential 6 Discovery Material (as defined in Section I.3), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from 7 Confidential Discovery Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Confidential 8 Discovery Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties or their counsel 9 that might reveal Confidential Discovery Material. 10 13. The protections conferred by this Protective Order do not cover any information that 11 is: (a) in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party, or becomes part of the 12 public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a 13 violation of this Protective Order; (b) lawfully obtained and known to the Receiving Party prior to 14 the disclosure; or (c) obtained by the Receiving Party after disclosure from a source who obtained 15 the information lawfully and is under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any 16 use of Confidential Discovery Material at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 17 14. Any Party issuing a subpoena to a Non-Party must include a copy of this Protective 18 Order and notify the Non-Party that the protections of this Protective Order are available to the Non- 19 Party when producing information. 20 III. DESIGNATING DISCOVERY MATERIAL 21 15.

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

Related

United States v. Steven M. Self
2 F.3d 1071 (Tenth Circuit, 1993)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/houston-casualty-company-v-findlay-management-group-nvd-2025.