JEFFREY S. CROWE (SBN 216055) SCOTT P. DEVRIES (SBN 88221) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP HAMPTON LLP 50 California Street, Suite 1700 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 415.975.3700 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 415.975.3701 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: sdevries@hunton.com Email: jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com RACHEL E. HUDGINS (Pro Hac Vice) SCOTT SVESLOSKY (SBN 217660) HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP MARY E. GREGORY (SBN 210247) Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. HAMPTON LLP Atlanta, Georgia 30308 350 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor Telephone: 404.888.4000 Los Angeles, California 90071-3460 Facsimile: 404.888.4190 Telephone: 213.620.1780 Email: rhudgins@hunton.com Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Email: ssveslosky@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs mgregory@sheppardmullin.com RLC INDUSTRIES CO. AND ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION RLC INDUSTRIES CO. and ROSEBURG Case No. 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR FOREST PRODUCTS CO., Assigned to the Hon. Troy L. Nunley and Plaintiffs, Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan v. JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL OR REDACT CERTAIN EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE OHIO CASUALTY SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 7, 2023 Plaintiffs RLC Industries Co. and Roseburg Forest Products Co. (“Roseburg”) and defendant Liberty Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit, pursuant to Local Rules 141 and 141.1 and this Court’s Civil Standing Order, this Joint Request to seal or redact the following exhibits to Liberty’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”): Exhibits to seal in their entirety: Exhibit 8: Baker-Roseburg Retention Letter dated September 6, 2022 Exhibit 9: Letter from BakerHostetler (“Baker”) to Liberty dated September 7, 2022 Exhibit 13: AlixPartners-Roseburg Retention Letter dated September 12, 2022 Exhibit 26: Email from Victoria Weatherford to Dustin Dow dated October 19, 2022 Exhibit 28: Email from Robert Julian to James Frantz dated October 24, 2022 Exhibit 42: Email from Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated January 6, 2023 Exhibit 46: Email from Rachel Hudgins to Chris Faddis and the carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated March 24, 2023 Exhibits to seal in part (redacted portions only): Exhibit 27: Letter from Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated October 19, 2022 (redact exhibits to letter only) Exhibit 32: Email from Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman dated November 22, 2022 Exhibit 38: Email from Mary Gregory to Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins dated December 1, 2022 Exhibit 43: Letter from Mary Gregory to Matthew Lawless of Roseburg dated January 24, 2023 Exhibit 44: Emails between Rachel Hudgins, Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier 25, 2023 and January 26, 2023 Exhibit 45: Letter from Mary Gregory to Matthew Lawless of Roseburg dated February 9, 2023 Exhibit 58: Excerpts from the deposition of Baker and Robert Julian taken in this matter on May 30, 2024 Exhibit 59: Excerpts from the deposition of Roseburg taken in this matter on April 26 and 29, 2024 Exhibit 60: Excerpts from the deposition of David Frangiamore taken in this matter on October 10, 2024 The Exhibits contain information or deposition testimony that Roseburg designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case (ECF 30). Section 4.2(b) of the Protective Order entered in this case allows a party to designate deposition testimony as “Confidential.” (ECF 30, at 7:25-8:6). The Protective Order also states that “the parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.” (ECF 30, at 3:25-28). Section 11.3. of the Protective Order further states that a “Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with Local Rule 141 and with any pertinent orders of the assigned District Judge and Magistrate Judge.” (ECF 30, at 13:1-5). Section 1.14. of the Protective Order defines “Protected Material” as “[a]ny Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’” (ECF 30, at 4:24-27). Section 1.6. of the Protective Order defines “Disclosure or Discovery Material” as “[a]ll 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.” (ECF 30, at 5:17-18). Pursuant to the Protective Order, Roseburg has designated certain deposition testimony that “such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why [they] should not be part of the public record of this case.” (ECF 30 at 3.) Many of the documents produced by Roseburg and Baker, Roseburg’s attorneys with respect to the Mill Fire claims, reveal Roseburg’s legal strategy and sensitive liability information, including settlement valuations. If this information became public, it would directly impact the Mill Fire claims remaining against Roseburg, prejudicing Roseburg. See, e.g., Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Rsrv., No. 3:17-cv- 01436, 2017 WL 7362744, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) (information pertaining to “attorney’s mental processes” should be sealed so counsel can “analyze and prepare for the client’s case without interference from an opponent” (citation omitted)); In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 12-cv-6003, 2015 WL 8570883, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 8479543 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015), aff’d, 716 F.App’x 603 (9th Cir. 2017) (granting motion to seal for “legal advice by the [proponent’s] counsel regarding . . . potential claims” because such information could “significantly harm or prejudice” the proponent). Liberty intends to use the “Confidential” deposition testimony and documents identified above as evidence in support of its Motion (“Confidential Exhibits”). Liberty and Roseburg request that the Court maintain the Confidential Exhibits under seal for purposes of Liberty’s Motion. Roseburg and Liberty are the only parties remaining in this action. There are no other parties to serve with the Joint Request to Seal Documents or the Notice of the Joint Request to Seal Documents. This Request to Seal consists of 412 pages in total – four (4) pages for the Request and 408 pages for the Confidential Exhibits. [Signatures on Next Page] / / / / / / / / / Dated: December 10, 2024 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
By /s/ Mary E. Gregory JEFFREY S. CROWE SCOTT SVESLOSKY Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
Dated: December 10, 2024 HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP /s/ Rachel E. Hudgins By [As authorized on December10, 2024] RACHEL E. HUDGINS Attorneys for Plaintiffs RLC INDUSTRIES CO. AND ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
JEFFREY S. CROWE (SBN 216055) SCOTT P. DEVRIES (SBN 88221) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP HAMPTON LLP 50 California Street, Suite 1700 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Costa Mesa, California 92626 Telephone: 415.975.3700 Telephone: 714.513.5100 Facsimile: 415.975.3701 Facsimile: 714.513.5130 Email: sdevries@hunton.com Email: jcrowe@sheppardmullin.com RACHEL E. HUDGINS (Pro Hac Vice) SCOTT SVESLOSKY (SBN 217660) HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP MARY E. GREGORY (SBN 210247) Bank of America Plaza, Suite 4100 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & 600 Peachtree Street, N.E. HAMPTON LLP Atlanta, Georgia 30308 350 S. Grand Ave., 40th Floor Telephone: 404.888.4000 Los Angeles, California 90071-3460 Facsimile: 404.888.4190 Telephone: 213.620.1780 Email: rhudgins@hunton.com Facsimile: 213.620.1398 Email: ssveslosky@sheppardmullin.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs mgregory@sheppardmullin.com RLC INDUSTRIES CO. AND ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, SACRAMENTO DIVISION RLC INDUSTRIES CO. and ROSEBURG Case No. 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR FOREST PRODUCTS CO., Assigned to the Hon. Troy L. Nunley and Plaintiffs, Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan v. JOINT REQUEST TO SEAL OR REDACT CERTAIN EXHIBITS TO DEFENDANT LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, LIBERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and THE OHIO CASUALTY SUMMARY JUDGMENT, OR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; ORDER Defendants. Complaint Filed: April 7, 2023 Plaintiffs RLC Industries Co. and Roseburg Forest Products Co. (“Roseburg”) and defendant Liberty Insurance Corporation (“Liberty”) (collectively, the “Parties”) hereby submit, pursuant to Local Rules 141 and 141.1 and this Court’s Civil Standing Order, this Joint Request to seal or redact the following exhibits to Liberty’s Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment (the “Motion”): Exhibits to seal in their entirety: Exhibit 8: Baker-Roseburg Retention Letter dated September 6, 2022 Exhibit 9: Letter from BakerHostetler (“Baker”) to Liberty dated September 7, 2022 Exhibit 13: AlixPartners-Roseburg Retention Letter dated September 12, 2022 Exhibit 26: Email from Victoria Weatherford to Dustin Dow dated October 19, 2022 Exhibit 28: Email from Robert Julian to James Frantz dated October 24, 2022 Exhibit 42: Email from Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated January 6, 2023 Exhibit 46: Email from Rachel Hudgins to Chris Faddis and the carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated March 24, 2023 Exhibits to seal in part (redacted portions only): Exhibit 27: Letter from Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated October 19, 2022 (redact exhibits to letter only) Exhibit 32: Email from Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman dated November 22, 2022 Exhibit 38: Email from Mary Gregory to Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins dated December 1, 2022 Exhibit 43: Letter from Mary Gregory to Matthew Lawless of Roseburg dated January 24, 2023 Exhibit 44: Emails between Rachel Hudgins, Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier 25, 2023 and January 26, 2023 Exhibit 45: Letter from Mary Gregory to Matthew Lawless of Roseburg dated February 9, 2023 Exhibit 58: Excerpts from the deposition of Baker and Robert Julian taken in this matter on May 30, 2024 Exhibit 59: Excerpts from the deposition of Roseburg taken in this matter on April 26 and 29, 2024 Exhibit 60: Excerpts from the deposition of David Frangiamore taken in this matter on October 10, 2024 The Exhibits contain information or deposition testimony that Roseburg designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the Protective Order entered in this case (ECF 30). Section 4.2(b) of the Protective Order entered in this case allows a party to designate deposition testimony as “Confidential.” (ECF 30, at 7:25-8:6). The Protective Order also states that “the parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential without a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case.” (ECF 30, at 3:25-28). Section 11.3. of the Protective Order further states that a “Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with Local Rule 141 and with any pertinent orders of the assigned District Judge and Magistrate Judge.” (ECF 30, at 13:1-5). Section 1.14. of the Protective Order defines “Protected Material” as “[a]ny Disclosure or Discovery Material that is designated as ‘CONFIDENTIAL.’” (ECF 30, at 4:24-27). Section 1.6. of the Protective Order defines “Disclosure or Discovery Material” as “[a]ll 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.” (ECF 30, at 5:17-18). Pursuant to the Protective Order, Roseburg has designated certain deposition testimony that “such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why [they] should not be part of the public record of this case.” (ECF 30 at 3.) Many of the documents produced by Roseburg and Baker, Roseburg’s attorneys with respect to the Mill Fire claims, reveal Roseburg’s legal strategy and sensitive liability information, including settlement valuations. If this information became public, it would directly impact the Mill Fire claims remaining against Roseburg, prejudicing Roseburg. See, e.g., Williams & Cochrane, LLP v. Quechan Tribe of Fort Yuma Indian Rsrv., No. 3:17-cv- 01436, 2017 WL 7362744, at *2-3 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) (information pertaining to “attorney’s mental processes” should be sealed so counsel can “analyze and prepare for the client’s case without interference from an opponent” (citation omitted)); In re Hewlett-Packard Co. Shareholder Derivative Litig., No. 12-cv-6003, 2015 WL 8570883, at *5-6 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, 2015 WL 8479543 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2015), aff’d, 716 F.App’x 603 (9th Cir. 2017) (granting motion to seal for “legal advice by the [proponent’s] counsel regarding . . . potential claims” because such information could “significantly harm or prejudice” the proponent). Liberty intends to use the “Confidential” deposition testimony and documents identified above as evidence in support of its Motion (“Confidential Exhibits”). Liberty and Roseburg request that the Court maintain the Confidential Exhibits under seal for purposes of Liberty’s Motion. Roseburg and Liberty are the only parties remaining in this action. There are no other parties to serve with the Joint Request to Seal Documents or the Notice of the Joint Request to Seal Documents. This Request to Seal consists of 412 pages in total – four (4) pages for the Request and 408 pages for the Confidential Exhibits. [Signatures on Next Page] / / / / / / / / / Dated: December 10, 2024 SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
By /s/ Mary E. Gregory JEFFREY S. CROWE SCOTT SVESLOSKY Attorneys for Defendant LIBERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION
Dated: December 10, 2024 HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP /s/ Rachel E. Hudgins By [As authorized on December10, 2024] RACHEL E. HUDGINS Attorneys for Plaintiffs RLC INDUSTRIES CO. AND ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO.
Having considered the Joint Request, and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant Liberty Insurance Corporation may file the following exhibits in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment under seal: Exhibit 8: Baker-Roseburg Retention Letter dated September 6, 2022 Exhibit 9: Letter from BakerHostetler (“Baker”) to Liberty dated September 7, 2022 Exhibit 13: AlixPartners-Roseburg Retention Letter dated September 12, 2022 Exhibit 26: Email from Victoria Weatherford to Dustin Dow dated October 19, 2022 Exhibit 28: Email from Robert Julian to James Frantz dated October 24, 2022 Exhibit 42: Email from Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated January 6, 2023 Exhibit 46: Email from Rachel Hudgins to Chris Faddis and the carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated March 24, 2023 It is further ORDERED that defendant Liberty Insurance Corporation may redact and file in the public record the following exhibits in support of its Motion for Summary Judgment, or Alternatively, Partial Summary Judgment: Exhibit 27: Letter from Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier adjusters in Roseburg’s insurance tower dated October 19, 2022 (redact exhibits only) Exhibit 32: Email from Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins to Sarah Kaufman dated November 22, 2022 Exhibit 38: Email from Mary Gregory to Scott DeVries and Rachel Hudgins dated December 1, 2022 Exhibit 43: Letter from Mary Gregory to Matthew Lawless of Roseburg dated January 24, 2023 Exhibit 44: Emails between Rachel Hudgins, Sarah Kaufman and the other carrier 25, 2023 and January 26, 2023 Exhibit 45: Letter from Mary Gregory to Matthew Lawless of Roseburg dated February 9, 2023 Exhibit 58: Excerpts from the deposition of Baker and Robert Julian taken in this matter on May 30, 2024 Exhibit 59: | Excerpts from the deposition of Roseburg taken in this matter on April 26 and 29, 2024 Exhibit 60: Excerpts from the deposition of David Frangiamore taken in this matter on October 10, 2024 Liberty shall file unredacted versions of these exhibits under seal. IT ISSO ORDERED. 7, | | f f y } DATED: December 11, 2024 Troy L. Nunley Chief United States District Judge -7-