Mahshid Khoshkhoo v. RiverSource Life Insurance Company; Does 1-10

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 1, 2026·No. 2:25-cv-09572·Unknown

Opinion

1 MISTY A. MURRAY (SBN 196870) Misty.Murray@maynardnexsen.com 2 KAREN T. TSUI (SBN 305869) KTsui@maynardnexsen.com 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 650 4 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: 310.596.4500 5 6 Attorneys for Defendant RiverSource Life Insurance Company 7 10 11 MAHSHID KHOSHKHOO, Case No. 2:25-cv-09572-MCS-RAO 12 Plaintiff, (Hon. Rozella A. Oliver) 13 vs. COMPANY; DOES 1-10, ORDER1 15 Defendants. 16 Discovery Cutoff: August 24, 2026 17 Motion Cutoff: October 5, 2026 Trial Date: January 19, 2027 18 Complaint Filed: August 28, 2025 19

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures with some 28 1 1.A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary 3 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 4 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 5 the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 6 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 7 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 8 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 9 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 1.B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve production of information that is confidential, 12 sensitive, proprietary, trade secret, commercial, financial and/or business information, 13 used by Defendant RiverSource Life Insurance Company (“Defendant”) in connection 14 with its business, specifically the processing of disability claims. These materials are not 15 available to the public, are not disseminated outside Defendant’s offices, and are only 16 provided to those employees, agents or third-party administrators who need access to the 17 materials in order to perform their duties for Defendant. Defendant contends that if these 18 materials are not kept confidential, there is a substantial probability that Defendant would 19 suffer prejudice to the extent that competitors would gain a competitive advantage if the 20 contents of the materials are made public. 21 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 22 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 23 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 24 permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct 25 of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, 26 a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 27 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 28 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 1 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the 2 public record of this case. 3 1.C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 4 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 5 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 6 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 7 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 8 material under seal. 9 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 10 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 11 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County 12 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 13 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 14 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 15 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 16 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 17 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 18 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 19 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 20 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 21 cause. 22 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 23 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 24 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 25 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 26 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 27 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 28 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 1 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 2 under seal must be provided by declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 4 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 5 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the 6 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. 7 Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include 8 an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 10 2. DEFINITIONS 11 2.1 Action: Mahshid Khoshkhoo v. RiverSource Life Insurance Company, United 12 States District Court Central District of California Case No. 2:25-cv-09572-MCS-RAO. 13 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 14 information or items under this Order. 15 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it 16 is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under 17 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause 18 Statement. 19 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 20 support staff). 21 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items 22 that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the 24 medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other 25 things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things) that are produced or generated in 26 disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 27 28 1 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent 2 to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert 3 witness or as a consultant in this Action. 4 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House 5 Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 6 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other 7 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

Mahshid Khoshkhoo v. RiverSource Life Insurance Company; Does 1-10, (C.D. Cal. 2026).

Mahshid Khoshkhoo v. RiverSource Life Insurance Company; Does 1-10 (Mahshid Khoshkhoo v. RiverSource Life Insurance Company; Does 1-10) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

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)
Abrams v. Communications Workers of America
187 F.R.D. 12 (District of Columbia, 1999)