Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Lim

District Court, E.D. California·Decided October 23, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-00442·Unknown

Opinion

eI IID EIEIO IIE III OS INGE I RE

! Michael S. Braun, Esq. (SBN 152461) Kevin Hatanian, Esq. (SBN 276028) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. BRAUN 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 670 Torrance, California 90503 Telephone: 310-984-3220 Facsimile: 310-984-3221 Email: mbraun@mbraunlaw.com Attorneys for Lim Defendants EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA |] JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE _ | Case No, 1:23-cv-00442-CDB COMPANY, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, Hon. Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker v. BIBI LIM, WINSTON LIM, CELESTINE LIM, VENANCIO LIM, WILLIE LIM, PETERSON LIM, TIFFANY AUNG, CRYSTAL AUNG, {KYIAUNG, KYI AUNG as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CAROLINE ] LIM, AND DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve the production of

confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted.

The parties and former Plaintiff Jackson National Life Insurance Company (“Jackson”) provide 37 the followmg in response to Local Rule 141.1(c): -|-

ee REI IID EI IIE IIE III IRE OOS INGE IED RE

l (1) A description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); The parties recently asked Jackson to produce certain documents. One of the requests asked Jackson for its policies and procedures on changing a policy’s beneficiaries. Another was for an unredacted copy of a Beneficiary Designation Supplement that Jackson previously produced in redacted form to protect personally identifying information. Jackson asked Defendants to request entry of a protective order because it expects at least some of the ] documents responsive to Defendants’ requests will contain confidential proprietary and/or trade secret information regarding how Jackson does business, including but not limited to Jackson’s policies and procedures for implementing or not implementing beneficiary change requests. Additionally, at least some of the responsive documents will contain information required to be redacted under L.R. 140(a). (2) Ashowing of particularized need for protection as to each category of {| information proposed to be covered by the order; and Jackson zealously guards the secrecy of its internal policies and procedures lest competing companies attempt to copy them and thereby gain a competitive advantage or attempt to adjust their own policies and procedures in response to Jackson’s, again in an attempt to gain a competitive advantage. If Jackson were to freely produce documents containing proprietary information, not only would it make it much easier for other companies to gain a competitive edge over Jackson, Jackson’s competitors might challenge whether Jackson has employed reasonable efforts to keep its trade secrets potentially forgoing protection for them under the Defending Trade Secrets Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A); Beluca Ventures LLC v. Einride Aktiebolag, 660 F. Supp. 3d 898, 907 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Likewise, Jackson takes seriously its obligation to protect personally identifying information such as that listed in L.R. 140(a). (3) A-showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties. -2- STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

ee III EIEIO IIE III IRE OS INGE IED RE OE

l The parties and Jackson request a court order because court orders carry greater weight 2 than private agreements, especially with third parties such as expert witnesses who may need to 3 be shown documents marked confidential. Moreover, with court orders the enforcement 4 mechanism is clear. In contrast, the remedy for an alleged breach of a private agreement may be 5 a separate lawsuit for breach of contract. Going the court order route will promote judicial 6 efficiency; going the private agreement route could undermine it. Local Rule 140(b) 7 ; acknowledges this reality, instructing: “When counsel seeks to submit protected information, a 8 protective order or order authorizing redaction should be sought.” Given the foregoing, good 9 cause exists under Rule 26(c)(1) for the Court to enter this Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all } disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Rules 140 and 141 set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Challenging Party: a Pary or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal ) Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c). 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.4 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designated information or items that it produces in disclosure or in response to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” -3- STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

ee EI IIIS EI IRI IIE III IRE OS INGE IED OS

1 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 2 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, 3 testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosure or 4 response to discovery in this matter. 5 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to 6 the litigations who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as 7 a consultant in this action. 8 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees ofa party to this action. House 9 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. [2 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of [5 || that party. 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Records (and their support staff). 2.11 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosures or Discovery Material in this action. 2.12 Professions Vendors: persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstration, and organizing, storing, or retrieving date in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.13 Protected Materials: any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.14 Receiving Party: A Party that received Disclosure or Discovery Material from a Producing Party. -4- STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

ee RII EI II IE III IEE OS INGE IED RED

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

Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Lim, (E.D. Cal. 2024).

Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Lim (Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Lim) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Definitions
18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A)