NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedOctober 3, 2025
Docket5:25-cv-00441
StatusUnknown

This text of NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC (NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC) 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
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC, (C.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP Albert K. Alikin (SBN 265119) 2 Albert.Alikin@fmglaw.com 3 Alexander G. Meissner (SBN 315437) Alex.Meissner@fmglaw.com 4 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90071 5 Tel.: (213) 615-7000 Fax: (833) 264-2083 6 7 FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP P. Betty Su (SBN 229103) 8 pbetty.su@fmglaw.com 1850 Mt Diablo Blvd,, Ste 510 9 Walnut Creek, California 94596 10 Tel.: (925) 446-2612 Fax: (833) 330-3669 11 Attorneys for Defendant 12 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY 13 DOYLE LAW, APC 14 CONAL DOYLE, ESQ., SBN 227554 conal@conaldoylelaw.com 15 IAIN HILL, ESQ., SBN 336825 iain@conaldoylelaw.com 16 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse 17 Beverly Hills, California 90212 Tel.: (310) 385-056 18 Attorneys for Plaintiff 19 SARAH MONTALVAN 20 DOYLE LAW GROUP 21 Daniel W. Doyle, Esq., SBN 147705 ddoyle@doyle-lawgroup.com 22 34022 Selva Road, Suite 52 23 Dana Point, CA 92629 Tel: (949) 233-5166 24 25 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANITA MYERS 26 27 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 SARAH MONTALVAN; and ANITA Case No. 5:25-cv-00441 SPG (SSCx) 4 MYERS, 5 Plaintiffs, 6 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER 7 NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE 8 COMPANY; and DOES 1-50, 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 13 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs SARAH 14 MONTALVAN and ANITA MYERS and Defendant NATIONAL GENERAL 15 INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through their respective counsel of record, that in 16 order to facilitate discovery in this Action while addressing potential confidentiality 17 concerns under federal law, state law, and applicable privacy rights, the Parties 18 stipulate to the following Protective Order: 19 20 21 1. INTRODUCTION 22 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to 23 involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for 24 which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 25 purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 26 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to 27 1 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 2 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 3 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 4 items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 5 legal principles. 6 1.2 Good Cause Statement. ( [*The “Good Cause Statement” 7 should be edited to include or exclude specific information that 8 applies to the particular case, i.e., what harm will result from the 9 disclosure of the confidential information likely to be produced 10 in this case? Below is an example]: (Original Emphasis.) 11 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing 12 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, 13 technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection 14 from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 15 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and 16 proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 17 confidential business or financial information, information regarding 18 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, 19 development, or commercial information (including information 20 implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 21 22 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or 23 otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 24 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 25 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 26 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information 27 the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties 1 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 2 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 4 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 5 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 6 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 7 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 8 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. The 9 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 10 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 11 information under seal; Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that 12 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party 13 seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 14 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 15 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with 16 non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing 17 under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 18 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors 19 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 20 Elecs., Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated 21 22 protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of 23 good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and 24 legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that 25 a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of 26 Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 27 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 1 confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 2 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 3 or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 4 must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 5 the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 6 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 7 information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 8 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 9 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 10 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, 11 competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under 12 seal must be provided by declaration. 13 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise 14 protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 15 portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 16 version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 17 otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 18 application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 19 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 20 21 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action. means Case No. 5:25-cv-00441 SPG (SHKx). 24 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 25 designation of information or items under this Order. 26 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information 27 (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 1 things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of 2 Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 4 well as their support staff).

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)
Knight v. Spencer
447 F.3d 6 (First Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-general-insurance-company-v-doyle-law-apc-cacd-2025.