Sempra Energy v. Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited

District Court, C.D. California·Decided November 18, 2019·No. 2:19-cv-03340·Unknown

Opinion

1 || Kirk Pasich (SBN 94242) kpasich @ pasichllp.com □□ Sandra Smith Thayer (SBN 200294) 3 || Sthayer @ pasichllp.com Anamay M. Carmel (SBN 298080) NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT 4 || acarmel @ pasichllp.com Christopher T. Pasich (SBN 299191) 5 || cpasich @ pasichllp.com 10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2000 7 ||Los Angeles, California 90024 Telephone: (424) 313-7860 8 || Facsimile: (424) 313-7890 9 Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counter-Defendants 10 Sempra Energy and Southern California Gas Company 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 «12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13

14 SEMPRA ENERGY; and SOUTHERN $ | Case No. 2:19-cv-03340-ODW (JPR)x 15 || CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, | STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 16 Plaintiffs, ORDER 17 VS. 18 || ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC & GAS INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED; 19 || e¢ al., 20 Defendants. 21||AND RELATED ACTIONS 22 23 Having reviewed the Parties’ Stipulated Protective Order, and for good cause 24 || appearing, the Court hereby enters a Stipulated Protective Order as follows: 25|| 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 26 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 27 || proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 28 || disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may

1 || be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 2 || enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 3 || Stipulated Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or 4 || responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and 5 || use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential 6 || treatment under the applicable legal principles. 7 2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action is likely to involve the production of valuable commercial, 9 || financial, technical, confidential and/or proprietary information for which the parties 10 || believe special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other 11 || than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary 12 || materials and information may consist of, among other things, confidential business 13 || or financial information; information regarding confidential business practices or 14 || other confidential, technical, or commercial information; confidential information 15 || implicating privacy rights of third parties; information otherwise generally unavailable to the public; or information which may be otherwise protected from 17 || disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common 18 || law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 19 || resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 20 || protect information the parties believe they are entitled to keep confidential, to 21 ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable, necessary uses of such material in 22 || preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the 23 || litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information 1s 24 || justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 25 || designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing will be so designated 26 || without a good-faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 27 || manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 28 || case.

1 3. PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 2 The parties further acknowledge that this Stipulated Protective Order does not 3 || entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets 4 || forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied 5 || when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 6 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 7 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 8 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 9 || County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 10 || Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 11 || Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 3 12 || require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 13 || reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification must be made with 14 || respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 15 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establish that the 17 || material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or is 18 || otherwise protectable,—constitute good cause. 19 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 20 || compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 21 || relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 22 || See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 23 || each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 24 || under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 25 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 26 || justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 27 || the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 28

1 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 2 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 3 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 4 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 5 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 6 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 7 A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected Material must comply with 8 || Local Civil Rule 79-5. Protected Material may only be filed under seal pursuant to a 9 || Court order authorizing the sealing of the specific Protected Material at issue. If a 10 || Party’s request to file Protected Material under seal is denied by the Court, then the 11 || Receiving Party may file the information in the public record unless otherwise 3 12 || instructed by the Court. 13 4. DEFINITIONS 14 a. “Action”: the above-entitled lawsuit 15 b. “Challenging Party”: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Stipulated Protective Order. 17 c. “CONFIDENTIAL Materials”: any Document, Testimony, or 18 || Information, as defined below: (i) that is produced for or disclosed to a Party 19 || (Plaintiffs, Defendants, or Counter-Defendant); (i1) that the Designating Party 20 || reasonably and in good faith believes to be entitled to confidential treatment under 21 || applicable law, including, without limitation, trade secrets and other proprietary 22 || information; and (ii1) that has been designated as “Confidential Material” by the 23 || Designating Party in compliance with this Stipulated Protective Order.

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

Sempra Energy v. Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited, (C.D. Cal. 2019).

Sempra Energy v. Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited (Sempra Energy v. Associated Electric and Gas Insurance Services Limited) — 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)