Kinder v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided September 11, 2024·No. 2:23-cv-01338·Unknown

Opinion

44 55 66 77 88 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 99 DISTRICT OFNEVADA 1100 1111 HARRY STUART KINDER, Case No. 2:23-cv-01338-JAD-BNW 1122 Plaintiff, [AMENDED PROPOSED] PROTECTIVEORDER 1133 v. LIBERTYMUTUAL INSURANCE 1155 COMPANY,and Does1 through 100, 1166 Defendants. 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 1. OVERVIEW OF PROTECTIVE ORDER 1.1 Purposes and Limitations Discoveryinthisactionislikelytoinvolveproductionofconfidential,proprietaryorprivate informationforwhichspecialprotectionfrompublicdisclosureandfromuseforanypurposeother than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petitiontheCourttoenterthe followingStipulatedProtectiveOrder.Thepartiesacknowledgethat this Order doesnot confer blanketprotections on all disclosures orresponses to discoveryand that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items thatareentitledto confidentialtreatment undertheapplicable legal principles. 1.2. Good Cause Statement This action is likely to involve commercial, financial, technical, and/or proprietary informationforwhichspecialprotectionfrompublicdisclosureandfromuseforanypurposeother than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or proprietary information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential commercial information,informationotherwisegenerallyunavailabletothepublic,orwhichmaybeprivileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end ofthelitigation,andservetheendsofjustice, aprotectiveorderforsuchinformationisjustifiedin this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintainedinaconfidential,non-publicmanner,andthere is good cause why it should not be part of the public recordof this case. 1.3 Acknowledgement of Procedurefor Filing UnderSeal 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 Rule IA 10-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a partyseeks permission from the courtto file materialunderseal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown tosupportafilingunderseal. SeeKamakanav.CityandCountyofHonolulu,447F.3d1172,1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar- Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure of Discovery Material as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL and/or CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons,notonlygoodcause,forthesealingmustbeshown,andthereliefsoughtshallbenarrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought tobefiledorintroducedundersealinconnectionwithadispositivemotionortrial,thepartyseeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Competent evidence supporting the application to file documents undersealmust beprovidedbydeclaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action:Thispendingfederallawsuit intheUnited StatesFederalDistrictCourtfor the District of Nevada, CaseNo. 2:23-cv-01338-JAD-BNW. 2.2 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information oritems underthis Order. 2.3 “HIGHLYCONFIDENTIAL”InformationorItems: Information(regardlessof howitisgenerated,storedormaintained)ortangiblethingsthatqualifyforprotectionunderFederal Rule ofCivil Procedure 26(c). 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that constitute private business information, as specified abovein theGood CauseStatement. 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.6 Designating Party: A Partyor Non-Partythat designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the mediumormannerin whichitis generated,stored,ormaintained(including, amongotherthings, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discoveryin this matter. 2.8 Expert:Apersonwithspecializedknowledgeorexperienceinamatterpertinentto the litigation who has been retained bya Partyor its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.9 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does notinclude Outside Counsel of Recordoranyotheroutsidecounsel. 2.10 Non-Party:Anynaturalperson,partnership,corporation,associationorotherlegal entitynot named as aPartyto this action. Thedefinitionof“Non-Party” does not include a party affiliateand/orsubsidiary. 2.11 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 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 2.12 Party:Anypartyto this Action, including allof its officers, directors, employees, consultants, retained experts,and OutsideCounselof Record (and their support staffs). 2.13 Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery Material in this Action. 2.14 Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 2.15 Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that isdesignated as“HIGHLYCONFIDENTIAL”or“CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.16 Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Mate

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

Kinder v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, (D. Nev. 2024).

Kinder v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company (Kinder v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related