OptumRX Inc. v. A & S Drugs LLC

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJuly 6, 2022
Docket8:22-cv-00468
StatusUnknown

This text of OptumRX Inc. v. A & S Drugs LLC (OptumRX Inc. v. A & S Drugs LLC) 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
OptumRX Inc. v. A & S Drugs LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-00468-FLA-JDE Document 53 Filed 07/06/22 Page 1 of 19 Page ID #:5461

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11

OPTUMRX, INC., as successor by CASE NO. 8:22-cv-00468-FLA (JDEx) 12 merger to Catamaran Corporation, and OPTUMRX, INC. in its own right, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 Petitioner, Judge: Hon. Fernando L. Aenlle-Rocha 14 v. 15 Lead Case No. 8:22-cv-00468-FLA A&S DRUGS LLC, et al., (JDEx) 16 Respondents. 17 [Discovery Document: Referred to Magistrate Judge John D. Early] 18

19 Based on the parties’ Stipulation, and for good cause shown, the Court finds and 20 orders as follows. 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 Case 8:22-cv-00468-FLA-JDE Document 53 Filed 07/06/22 Page 2 of 19 Page ID #:5462

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 4 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. 5 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the 6 following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does 7 not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the 8 protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 9 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 10 legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, 11 that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential 12 information under seal; Civil Local Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be 13 followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the 14 court to file material under seal. 15 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 16 The parties acknowledge that information produced in discovery, regardless of 17 its designation under this Order, may contain personal and health information subject 18 to the protections of, inter alia, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability 19 Act of 1996, the applicable requirements of the Standards for Privacy of Individually 20 Identifiable Health Information and its implementing regulations issued by the U.S. 21 Department of Health and Human Services (45 C.F.R. Parts 160-64; HIPAA Privacy 22 Regulations), and California Civil Code §§ 56 et seq., and 1798.82 et seq. (“Privacy 23 Laws”), which protect the confidentiality of individually-identifiable personal and 24 health information. Discovery may also involve trade secrets, customer and pricing 25 lists and other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 26 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 27 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. 28 2 Case 8:22-cv-00468-FLA-JDE Document 53 Filed 07/06/22 Page 3 of 19 Page ID #:5463

1 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 2 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect 3 information the parties are entitled or required to keep confidential, to ensure that the 4 parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and 5 in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve 6 the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It 7 is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for 8 tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has 9 been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 10 should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING 12 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 13 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 14 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 15 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 16 material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 17 to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive 18 motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. 19 City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 20 Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 21 Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 22 orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 23 compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 24 made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 25 parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL 26 does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing 27 that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 28 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 3 Case 8:22-cv-00468-FLA-JDE Document 53 Filed 07/06/22 Page 4 of 19 Page ID #:5464

1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 2 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 3 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See 4 Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item 5 or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal, 6 the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific 7 facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 8 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 9 declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its 11 entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 12 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 13 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be 14 filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should 15 include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Action: this pending federal law suit, OptumRx, Inc. v. A&S Drugs LLC, 18 et al., Central District Case No. 8:22-cv-00468-FLA-JDE. 19 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 20 information or items under this Order. 21 2.3 “Confidential Materials”: information (regardless of how it is generated, 22 stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule 23 of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 24 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information means 25 Confidential Materials that falls within one or more of the following categories: 26 a. Trade secrets information, including a formula, pattern, compilation, 27 program, device, method, technique, process, financial data, or list of actual or 28 potential customers or suppliers, that derives independent economic value, actual or 4 Case 8:22-cv-00468-FLA-JDE Document 53 Filed 07/06/22 Page 5 of 19 Page ID #:5465

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)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
OptumRX Inc. v. A & S Drugs LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/optumrx-inc-v-a-s-drugs-llc-cacd-2022.