Lacy Atzin v. Anthem, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 17, 2019·No. 2:17-cv-06816·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LACY ATZIN; MARK ANDERSEN, ) Case No.: 2:17-cv-6816 ODW (PLAx) on behalf of themselves and all others ) Assigned to Hon.: OTIS D. WRIGHT, II similarly situated, ) ) PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) ANTHEM, INC.; ANTHEM UM ) SERVICES, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) _________________________________)

good cause, the Court issues this Protective Order (the “Order”). Unless modified, this Order shall remain in effect through the conclusion of this litigation: The parties acknowledge that information produced in discovery, regardless of its designation under this Order, may contain personal and health information subject to the protections of, inter alia, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, the applicable requirements of the Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information and its implementing regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (45 C.F.R. Parts 160-64; HIPAA Privacy Regulations), and California Civil Code §§ 56 et seq., and 1798.82 et seq., which protect the confidentiality of individually-identifiable personal and health information. Discovery may also involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 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 or required 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 of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in 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 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. A document constitutes or contains “Confidential Material” when it has been given that designation by the party producing it or by the party to whom the information relates (“the Designating Party”). A party or nonparty may designate documents or information as “Confidential Material” as follows: a. In the case of documents and information contained in documents, designation must be made by placing the following legend on each page of the document before production: “CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” b. In the case of discovery responses and information contained in discovery responses, designation must be made by (i) placing a statement at the start or end of the responses specifying that the responses, or part of the responses, are designated Confidential Material, and (ii) placing the following legend on each page (including the caption page) of any discovery response containing designated Confidential Material: “CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” c. In the case of depositions and hearings, designation of the portions of the transcript (including exhibits) that contain Confidential Material must be made by the Designating Party by: (i) making a statement to that effect on the record in the course of the deposition or hearing; or (ii) sending a letter to all counsel within the time permitted for the review and signing of the deposition by the witness (in the event of a deposition) or within 45 days of receipt of the transcript of the hearing (in the event of a hearing). Once designated, the original and each copy of the transcript that contains Confidential Material must bear (or must be modified by counsel to bear) the following legend on its cover: “CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER.” following types of documents and information: a. information that is proprietary or constitutes a trade secret, including, without limitation, information, materials, and other documents reflecting non-public business or financial strategies and confidential competitive information that, if disclosed, could result in prejudice or harm to the disclosing party; b. non-public financial or business information; c. non-public communications with regulators, Departments of Insurance, or other governmental bodies that are intended to be kept confidential or are protected from disclosure by statute or regulation; and d. policyholder-specific information, including private medical information. 2.1 Any copies or reproductions, excerpts, summaries, or other documents or media that contain or incorporate Confidential Material as defined above will also be treated as Confidential Material under this Order. 2.2 Nothing in this Order will be construed as requiring Defendant to produce any personal or identifying information regarding any individual or any other policyholder, nor policyholder information that is protected from disclosure under applicable state or federal law. 3. Confidential Material may be used solely for the purpose of conducting this litigation and not for any other purpose whatsoever. For the purpose of conducting this litigation, Confidential Material may be used by, copied by, exhibited to, or disclosed to the following persons or entities only: a. The parties to this action; b. The parties’ attorneys and their respective employees; c. Any witness from whom testimony is taken or will be taken in this action, except that the witness may be shown copies of Confidential Material only extent relevant to the testimony. The witness may not retain any Confidential Material; d. Consultants, experts, and investigators employed by the parties or their attorneys in the prosecution or defense of any aspect of this litigation; e. Court reporters used in connection with this action and their employees; f. The jury, if any, in the trial of this case; and g. The Court and its staff. 4. No disclosure may be made to any person under Paragraphs 3(c), (d) or (e) until that person has executed an “Understanding and Agreement” in the form attached as Exhibit A. With respect to consultants, experts, and investigators employed by the parties to this litigation, Exhibit A must be fully executed by the consultant, expert, or investigator and retained by counsel for the party employing the consultant, expert, or investigator. In the event that any consultant, expert, or investigator employed by the parties to this litigation ceases to be engaged in the preparation of this Action, access by such person to discovery material designated as Confidential shall be terminated. Any such material in the possession of any such person shall be returned or destroyed. The provisions of this Order and the obligations not to disclose any portions of such material shall remain in full force and effect as to all such persons. 5. All persons described in paragraphs 2(a) through (f) above are prohibited from disclosing any portion of Confidential Material to any other person, or from using any information obtained from the Confidential Material, except as permitted by this Order. 6. Nothing in this Order prevents the use of information that is publicly available. transcripts, or other papers filed with the Clerk of the Court that contain any Confidential Material must be accompanied by an application to file the papers – or the confidential portion thereof – under seal in compliance with Local Rule 79-5; the application must demonstrate good cause for the under-seal filing. The application shall be directed to the judge to whom the papers are directed. Pending the ruling on the application, the papers or portions thereof subje

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

Lacy Atzin v. Anthem, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Lacy Atzin v. Anthem, Inc. (Lacy Atzin v. Anthem, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Hilario R. Alvarado, Madel Socorro
5 F.3d 1425 (Eleventh Circuit, 1993)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)