Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided May 10, 2023·No. 8:22-cv-01300·Unknown

Opinion

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA – SOUTHERN DIVISION

SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE ) Case No.: 8:22-cv-01300-JWH-KES COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, ) ______________________ ) Plaintiff, ) ) AMENDED [PROPOSED] v. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER ) BEACHCOMBER MANAGMENT ) CRYSTAL COVE, LLC, a California ) limited liability company, et. al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) RICHARD A. MARSHACK, Chapter ) 7 Trustee, ) ) Cross-Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE ) COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, ) ) Cross-Defendant. ) ) 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 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 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. 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve documentation and information relating to confidential and proprietary business practices or commercial information, including but not limited to confidential and proprietary reserve information, underwriting information and financial information, and settlement communications 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 may be otherwise unavailable to the public, or 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 are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation 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 or attorneys’ eyes only 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. 3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF UNDER SEAL FILING PROCEDURE The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 14.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 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 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 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, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 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. Pacific 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. 4. DEFINITIONS 4.1 Action: the above-captioned action pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California and styled as Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:22-cv- 01300-JWH-KES. 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 4.3 “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 as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 4.4 “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible items that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement, and disclosure of which to any Party or Non-Party would create significant risk of competitive disadvantage or business injury that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 4.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 4.6 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 4.7 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. 4.8 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. 4.9 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 4.10 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 4.11 Outside Counsel of

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

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC (Scottsdale Insurance Company v. Beachcomber Management Crystal Cove, LLC) — 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)
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)