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

1 |! Michael S. Braun, Esq. (SBN 152461) 5 Kevin Hatanian, Esq. (SBN 276028) LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL S. BRAUN 3 || 21515 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 670 Torrance, California 90503 4 || Telephone: 310-984-3220 Facsimile: 310-984-3221 5 || Email: mbraun@mbraunlaw.com 6 Attorneys for Lim Defendants EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 |] JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE _ | Case No, 1:23-cv-00442-CDB COMPANY, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, 13 Hon. Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker v. 14 BIBI LIM, WINSTON LIM, CELESTINE LIM, 15 || VENANCIO LIM, WILLIE LIM, PETERSON LIM, TIFFANY AUNG, CRYSTAL AUNG, 16 |{KYIAUNG, KYI AUNG as Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CAROLINE 17 ||] LIM, AND DOES 1 through 10, 18 Defendants. 19 20 21 0 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS

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

34 confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 35 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 2 || order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the 3 || information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); 4 The parties recently asked Jackson to produce certain documents. One of the requests 5 || asked Jackson for its policies and procedures on changing a policy’s beneficiaries. Another was 6 || for an unredacted copy of a Beneficiary Designation Supplement that Jackson previously 7 || produced in redacted form to protect personally identifying information. Jackson asked 8 || Defendants to request entry of a protective order because it expects at least some of the 9 |] documents responsive to Defendants’ requests will contain confidential proprietary and/or trade 10 || secret information regarding how Jackson does business, including but not limited to Jackson’s 11 || policies and procedures for implementing or not implementing beneficiary change requests. 12 || Additionally, at least some of the responsive documents will contain information required to be 13 || redacted under L.R. 140(a). 14 (2) Ashowing of particularized need for protection as to each category of 15 {| information proposed to be covered by the order; and 16 Jackson zealously guards the secrecy of its internal policies and procedures lest 17 || competing companies attempt to copy them and thereby gain a competitive advantage or attempt 18 || to adjust their own policies and procedures in response to Jackson’s, again in an attempt to gain a 19 || competitive advantage. If Jackson were to freely produce documents containing proprietary 20 || information, not only would it make it much easier for other companies to gain a competitive 21 || edge over Jackson, Jackson’s competitors might challenge whether Jackson has employed 22 || reasonable efforts to keep its trade secrets potentially forgoing protection for them under the 23 || Defending Trade Secrets Act. 18 U.S.C. § 1839(3)(A); Beluca Ventures LLC v. Einride 24 || Aktiebolag, 660 F. Supp. 3d 898, 907 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Likewise, Jackson takes seriously its 25 || obligation to protect personally identifying information such as that listed in L.R. 140(a). 26 (3) A-showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court 27 || order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties. 28 -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. 10 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 11 |} disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 12 || use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 13 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14 || 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 15 information under seal; Local Rules 140 and 141 set forth the procedures that must be followed 16 || and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 17 || material under seal. 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Challenging Party: a Pary or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 20 || information or items under this Order. 21 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 22 || generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal 23 |) Rules of Civil Procedure 26(c). 24 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 25 || well as their support staff). 26 2.4 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designated information or items that 27 || it produces in disclosure or in response to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 28 -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. 10 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 11 || 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 13 || action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this 14 || action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of [5 || that party. 16 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 17 || consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Records (and their support staff). 18 2.11 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosures or Discovery 19 || Material in this action.

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)