Janet T. Sullivan v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedSeptember 23, 2021
Docket2:21-cv-00645
StatusUnknown

This text of Janet T. Sullivan v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Janet T. Sullivan v. Transamerica Life 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
Janet T. Sullivan v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 || JANET T. SULLIVAN; JANET T. Case No. 2:21-cv-00645-CAS-GJS SULLIVAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE 12 || TEUTON IRREVOCABLE TRUST [PROEOSEDEORDER GRANTING DATED JUNE 21, 2002, TIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 ORDER Plaintiffs, 14 V. 15 TRANSAMERICA LIFE 16 | INSURANCE COMPANY, 17 Defendant. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 |} 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential and 3 || proprietary actuarial, business, technical, and financial information as well as 4 || private information of Plaintiffs JANET T. SULLIVAN and JANET T. 5 || SULLIVAN, AS TRUSTEE OF THE TEUTON IRREVOCABLE TRUST 6 || DATED JUNE 21, 2002 (“Plaintiffs”) or the insured for which special protection 7 || from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this 8 || litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and Defendant Transamerica 9 || Life Insurance Company (“TLIC”) hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 10 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties acknowledge 11 || that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 12 || discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 13 || only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 14 || under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth 15 }| in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected Material), below, that this Protective Order does 16 || not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 17 || and the Court’s Guide to Electronically Filing Under Seal Documents in Civil 18 || Cases set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 19 || applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 20 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 21 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 22 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 23 || and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 24 || Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 25 || Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 26 || orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 27 || compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 28 || made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The -2-

1 || parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 2 || or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without 3 || the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 4 || sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 5 || protectable—constitute good cause. 6 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 7 || then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 8 || the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 9 || protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 10 |} 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 11 || or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 12 || seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 13 || and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 14 || supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 15 || declaration. 16 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 17 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 18 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 19 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 20 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 21 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22 || 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Acknowledgment: the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to be 24 || Bound” form attached as Exhibit A to this Order. 25 2.2 Action: JANET T. SULLIVAN and JANET T. SULLIVAN, AS 26 || TRUSTEE OF THE TEUTON IRREVOCABLE TRUST DATED JUNE 21, 2002 v. 27 || Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Case No. 2:21-cv-00645-CAS-GIJS. 28

1 2.3. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 2 || designation of information or items under this Order. 3 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Confidential proprietary or 4 || commercially sensitive business and financial information, trade secrets, and 5 || personal information which is not generally known or publicly available and which 6 || the Designating Party would not normally reveal to third parties or information that 7 || otherwise meets the standard for protection set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal 8 || Rules of Civil Procedure. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 9 || designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 10 || without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential non-public 11 || manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 12 || this Action. 13 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 14 || their support staff). 15 2.6 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 16 || items that it produces or that are produced in disclosures or in response to discovery 17 || as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES 18 |} ONLY.” 19 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 20 || of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 21 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 22 || or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 23 2.8 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 24 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 25 || an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action and who is not a past or current 26 || employee of a Party or a current employee of a Party’s competitor and who, at the 27 || time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or a 28

1 || competitor of a Party. This definition includes a professional jury or trial 2 || consultant retained in connection with this litigation. 3 2.9 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 4 || Information or Items: Extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” 5 || disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 6 || serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 7 2.10 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees for a Party or of an 8 || entity that owns an interest in a Party and is responsible for controlling or directing 9 || the litigation. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 10 || other outside counsel. 11 2.11 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 12 || or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

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)
Davis v. Miller
14 Va. 1 (Supreme Court of Virginia, 1857)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Janet T. Sullivan v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/janet-t-sullivan-v-transamerica-life-insurance-company-cacd-2021.