NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided October 3, 2025·No. 5:25-cv-00441·Unknown

Opinion

Albert K. Alikin (SBN 265119) Albert.Alikin@fmglaw.com Alexander G. Meissner (SBN 315437) Alex.Meissner@fmglaw.com 550 South Hope Street, Suite 2200 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel.: (213) 615-7000 Fax: (833) 264-2083 P. Betty Su (SBN 229103) pbetty.su@fmglaw.com 1850 Mt Diablo Blvd,, Ste 510 Walnut Creek, California 94596 Tel.: (925) 446-2612 Fax: (833) 330-3669 Attorneys for Defendant DOYLE LAW, APC CONAL DOYLE, ESQ., SBN 227554 conal@conaldoylelaw.com IAIN HILL, ESQ., SBN 336825 iain@conaldoylelaw.com 280 S. Beverly Drive, Penthouse Beverly Hills, California 90212 Tel.: (310) 385-056 Attorneys for Plaintiff DOYLE LAW GROUP Daniel W. Doyle, Esq., SBN 147705 ddoyle@doyle-lawgroup.com 34022 Selva Road, Suite 52 Dana Point, CA 92629 Tel: (949) 233-5166 Attorneys for Plaintiff ANITA MYERS SARAH MONTALVAN; and ANITA Case No. 5:25-cv-00441 SPG (SSCx) Plaintiffs, v. ORDER NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY; and DOES 1-50, Defendants. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiffs SARAH MONTALVAN and ANITA MYERS and Defendant NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, by and through their respective counsel of record, that in order to facilitate discovery in this Action while addressing potential confidentiality concerns under federal law, state law, and applicable privacy rights, the Parties stipulate to the following Protective Order: 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purposes and Limitations. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 1.2 Good Cause Statement. ( [*The “Good Cause Statement” should be edited to include or exclude specific information that applies to the particular case, i.e., what harm will result from the disclosure of the confidential information likely to be produced in this case? Below is an example]: (Original Emphasis.) This action is likely to 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. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged 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 for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and 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. 1.3 Acknowledgment of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. 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 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 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 to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and Cnty. of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips ex rel. Ests. of Byrd v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210–11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Elecs., 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 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677–79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 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. means Case No. 5:25-cv-00441 SPG (SHKx). 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2.8 Final Disposition: the lat

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

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

NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC (NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. DOYLE LAW, APC) — 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)
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)