Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America

District Court, E.D. California·Decided March 25, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-00218·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, FRESNO DIVISION 10 MARTHA RUIZ, an individual, and Case No. 1:20-cv-00218-AWI-EPG YESENIA VERDUZCO, an individual, 11 Magistrate Judge: Erica P. Grosjean Plaintiffs, 12 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 13 GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF 14 AMERICA, a corporation, and Does 1 through Complaint filed; February 11, 2020 10, Trial date: May 17, 2022 15 Defendants. 16 __________________________________

18 On March 24, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation for a Protective Order (ECF No. 28). 19 This is the third stipulation and proposed order the parties filed. On March 12, 2021, and 20 March 22, 2021, the parties filed a first and second proposed protective order, which the Court 21 denied as not complying with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c). (ECF Nos. 21- 22 22, 26-27.) That rule provides that every proposed protective order contain the following 23 provisions: “(1) [a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, 24 with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information 25 (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); (2) [a] showing of particularized 26 need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and (3) 27 [a] showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to 1 a private agreement between or among the parties.” (paragraph breaks omitted). 2 The revised stipulation largely complies with Local Rule 141.1(c). However, when 3 describing the types of information eligible for protection, which Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires, 4 the revised stipulation includes the language “the type of confidential and proprietary material 5 eligible for protection in this action includes” and the category “(5) other documents and 6 information protected under privacy rights.” (ECF No. 28 at 2.) This catchall language does not 7 comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). The Court has revised the protective order to exclude this 8 language but otherwise enters the protective order proposed by the parties. 9 /// 10 /// 11 /// 12 /// 13 /// 14 /// 15 /// 16 /// 17 /// 18 /// 19 /// 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation for a Protective Order and representation that discovery 3 in this action is likely to involve the disclosure of confidential business, proprietary, private and/or 4 trade secret information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 5 purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted, this Court enters the following 6 Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 7 discovery. The protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited 8 information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 9 principles. Further, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not entitle the 10 parties to file confidential information under seal. Rather, when the parties seek permission from 11 the court to file material under seal, the parties must comply with Civil Local Rule 141 and with 12 any pertinent orders of the assigned District Judge and Magistrate Judge. 13 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 14 In accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), the types of confidential and 15 proprietary material eligible for protection in this action are: (1) proprietary policies, procedures, 16 manuals, handbooks and/or guidelines, including claim handling manuals, bulletins, training 17 materials, and documents concerning the handling of claims pursuant to the California Fair Claims 18 Settlement Practices Regulations, and other documents governing the investigation, handling and 19 adjustment of claims; (2) confidential Master Service Agreements with third party vendors, 20 including Independent Adjustment agreements and compensation and incentive information; (3) 21 confidential and proprietary financial and business data, including trade secret information; and/or 22 (4) policy underwriting and pricing material. 23 There is a particularized need for this Stipulated Protective Order. (Eastern District Local 24 Rule 141.1(c)(2)). Plaintiffs have already requested through discovery in this action to Defendant 25 and third parties, the types of confidential and proprietary materials noted in the preceding 26 paragraph. See Lee v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Long Term Disability Plan, 2010 WL 27 2803105 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2010) (internal insurance claims materials are considered trade 1 997212, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) (contemplating production of claims manuals pursuant to 2 protective order); GBTI, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., 2010 WL 2942631, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 3 23, 2010) (underwriting and claims manuals to be produced subject to appropriate 4 confidentiality/protective order in recognition by the Court that the insurer “has a legitimate 5 interest in protecting its trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information”); McCurdy v. 6 Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 915177, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007) (claims and procedural 7 manuals, guidelines, bulletins, and memoranda to be produced in accordance with the terms of a 8 stipulated protective order.); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 2013 WL 6001931, at *4 (N.D. 9 Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) (ordering production of claims adjusting manual, underwriting manual and 10 investigations manual pursuant to a stipulated protective order.) 11 In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and discovery already 12 propounded involving the production of confidential records, and in order to expedite the flow of 13 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery 14 materials, including the procedure for challenging Confidentiality designations in conformity with 15 Eastern District Local Rule 251 (Motions Dealing with Discovery Matters), to adequately protect 16 information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted 17 reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with this action, to address their handling 18 of such material at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for 19 such information is justified in this matter. (Eastern District Local Rule 141.1(c)(2)-(3)). 20 Finally, the Parties shall not designate any information/documents as confidential without 21 a good faith belief that such information/documents have been maintained in a confidential, non- 22 public manner, and that there is good cause or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the 23 public record of this case. 24 2. DEFINITIONS 25 2.1 Action: The instant action: Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America, 26 United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:20-cv-00218-AWI-EPG.

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

Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America, (E.D. Cal. 2021).

Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America (Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.