Jason Boutros v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedMarch 21, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-05724
StatusUnknown

This text of Jason Boutros v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Jason Boutros 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
Jason Boutros v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-05724-SPG-AS Document 44 Filed 03/21/23 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:665

1 Vivian I. Orlando (SBN 213833) 2 VOrlando@maynardcooper.com MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC 3 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, Ste 550 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310-596-4500 5 Facsimile: 205-254-1999 6 Jarrett E. Ganer * 7 jarrett.ganer@mhllp.com 8 Hutson B. Smelley * hutson.smelley@mhllp.com 9 Micah A. Grodin* 10 micah.grodin@mhllp.com MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP 11 1001 Fannin Street, Ste 2400 12 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-337-5580 13 Facsimile: 713-337-8850 14 * Admitted pro hac vice 15 Attorneys for Defendant 16 TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 17 18 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, WESTERN DIVISION 20 21 Case No. 2:22-cv-05724-SPG (ASx) JASON BOUTROS, 22 PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff, 23 [Discovery Matter Referred to Judge Sagar] 24 v. Judge: Hon. Sherilyn Peace Garnett 25 TRANSAMERICA LIFE Magistrate Judge: Hon. Alka Sagar 26 INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. 27 28 Case 2:22-cv-05724-SPG-AS Document 44 Filed 03/21/23 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:666

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this Action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, actuarial, business, technical, and financial information of Plaintiff Jason 4 Boutros and Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“TLIC”), or private 5 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 6 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the 7 Parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 8 Protective Order (“Order”). The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer 9 blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 10 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 11 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 12 legal principles. 13 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 This Action is likely to involve trade secrets, insured individuals’ medical 15 data, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, 16 commercial, financial, technical, and/or proprietary information for which special 17 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 18 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials 19 and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial 20 information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other 21 confidential research, development, or commercial information (including 22 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 23 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 24 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 25 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 26 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 27 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 28 that the Parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 2 Case 2:22-cv-05724-SPG-AS Document 44 Filed 03/21/23 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:667

1 preparation for and in the conduct of discovery and trial, to address their handling at 2 the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 3 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 4 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 5 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 6 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 7 record of this case. 8 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 9 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 11 Rule 79-5 and the Court’s Standing Order [ECF 11] set forth the procedures that 12 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a Party seeks 13 permission from the court to file material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 15 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 16 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 17 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 18 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 19 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require 20 good cause showing). A specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with 21 proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to 22 Protected Material that a Party seeks to file under seal. The Party’s mere designation 23 of Disclosure or Discovery Material as “CONFIDENTIAL” does not—without the 24 submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 25 sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 26 protectable—constitute good cause. 27 Further, if a Party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 28 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 3 Case 2:22-cv-05724-SPG-AS Document 44 Filed 03/21/23 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:668

1 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 2 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 3 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 4 seal in connection with discovery, a dispositive motion, or trial, the Party seeking 5 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 6 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 7 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 8 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 9 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 10 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 11 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 12 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 13 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 14 2. DEFINITIONS 15 2.1 Acknowledgement: The “Acknowledgement and Agreement to be 16 Bound” form attached as Exhibit A to this Order. 17 2.2 Action: Boutros v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Case No. 18 2:22-cv-05724-SPG-AS. 19 2.3 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 20 of information or items under this Order. 21 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Confidential proprietary or 22 commercially sensitive business and financial information, trade secrets, and personal 23 information which is not generally known or publicly available and which the 24 Designating Party would not normally reveal to a third party or information that 25 otherwise meets the standard for protection set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules 26 of Civil Procedure.

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)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Jason Boutros v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jason-boutros-v-transamerica-life-insurance-company-cacd-2023.