Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America

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

Opinion

MARTHA RUIZ, an individual, and Case No. 1:20-cv-00218-AWI-EPG YESENIA VERDUZCO, an individual, Magistrate Judge: Erica P. Grosjean Plaintiffs, v. PROTECTIVE ORDER GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, a corporation, and Does 1 through Complaint filed; February 11, 2020 10, Trial date: May 17, 2022 Defendants. __________________________________

On March 24, 2021, the parties filed a Stipulation for a Protective Order (ECF No. 28). This is the third stipulation and proposed order the parties filed. On March 12, 2021, and March 22, 2021, the parties filed a first and second proposed protective order, which the Court denied as not complying with Eastern District of California Local Rule 141.1(c). (ECF Nos. 21- 22, 26-27.) That rule provides that every proposed protective order contain the following provisions: “(1) [a] description of the types of information eligible for protection under the order, with the description provided in general terms sufficient to reveal the nature of the information (e.g., customer list, formula for soda, diary of a troubled child); (2) [a] showing of particularized need for protection as to each category of information proposed to be covered by the order; and (3) [a] showing as to why the need for protection should be addressed by a court order, as opposed to a private agreement between or among the parties.” (paragraph breaks omitted). The revised stipulation largely complies with Local Rule 141.1(c). However, when describing the types of information eligible for protection, which Local Rule 141.1(c)(1) requires, the revised stipulation includes the language “the type of confidential and proprietary material eligible for protection in this action includes” and the category “(5) other documents and information protected under privacy rights.” (ECF No. 28 at 2.) This catchall language does not comply with Local Rule 141.1(c)(1). The Court has revised the protective order to exclude this language but otherwise enters the protective order proposed by the parties. /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// /// 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation for a Protective Order and representation that discovery in this action is likely to involve the disclosure of confidential business, proprietary, private and/or trade secret information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this action may be warranted, this Court enters the following Protective Order. This Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery. 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. Further, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, this Protective Order does not entitle the parties to file confidential information under seal. Rather, when the parties seek permission from the court to file material under seal, the parties must comply with Civil Local Rule 141 and with any pertinent orders of the assigned District Judge and Magistrate Judge. In accordance with Eastern District Local Rule 141.1(c)(1), the types of confidential and proprietary material eligible for protection in this action are: (1) proprietary policies, procedures, manuals, handbooks and/or guidelines, including claim handling manuals, bulletins, training materials, and documents concerning the handling of claims pursuant to the California Fair Claims Settlement Practices Regulations, and other documents governing the investigation, handling and adjustment of claims; (2) confidential Master Service Agreements with third party vendors, including Independent Adjustment agreements and compensation and incentive information; (3) confidential and proprietary financial and business data, including trade secret information; and/or (4) policy underwriting and pricing material. There is a particularized need for this Stipulated Protective Order. (Eastern District Local Rule 141.1(c)(2)). Plaintiffs have already requested through discovery in this action to Defendant and third parties, the types of confidential and proprietary materials noted in the preceding paragraph. See Lee v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Long Term Disability Plan, 2010 WL 2803105 at *3 (N.D. Cal. July 14, 2010) (internal insurance claims materials are considered trade 997212, at *8 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 17, 2011) (contemplating production of claims manuals pursuant to protective order); GBTI, Inc. v. Ins. Co. of State of Pa., 2010 WL 2942631, at *4 (E.D. Cal. July 23, 2010) (underwriting and claims manuals to be produced subject to appropriate confidentiality/protective order in recognition by the Court that the insurer “has a legitimate interest in protecting its trade secrets and other confidential proprietary information”); McCurdy v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 2007 WL 915177, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007) (claims and procedural manuals, guidelines, bulletins, and memoranda to be produced in accordance with the terms of a stipulated protective order.); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Ryan, 2013 WL 6001931, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2013) (ordering production of claims adjusting manual, underwriting manual and investigations manual pursuant to a stipulated protective order.) In light of the nature of the claims and allegations in this case and discovery already propounded involving the production of confidential records, and in order to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, including the procedure for challenging Confidentiality designations in conformity with Eastern District Local Rule 251 (Motions Dealing with Discovery Matters), to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in connection with this action, to address their handling of such material at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. (Eastern District Local Rule 141.1(c)(2)-(3)). Finally, 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 or a compelling reason why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: The instant action: Ruiz v. General Insurance Company of America, United States District Court, Eastern District of California, Case No. 1:20-cv-00218-AWI-EPG. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) and that a Party or third-party reasonably, in good faith believes contains any confidential research, development, trade secret, or commercial information, or any other personal information of any Party or a Party’s customer, provided that the Party or third-party has made efforts to maintain confidentiality that are reasonable under the circumstances, whether the Confidential Information is: a document, electronically stored information (“ESI”), or other written material or image; information contained in a document, ESI, or other material; information revealed during a deposition; information revealed in an interrogatory, answer, or written response to discovery; information responsive to requests for production or a deposition subpoena for business records; information revealed during a meet and confer, or otherwise in connection with formal or in

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.