Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedMarch 3, 2025
Docket2:23-cv-01582
StatusUnknown

This text of Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co. (Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., (E.D. Cal. 2025).

Opinion

1 Yasin M. Almadani (SBN 242798) MIN K. KANG (SBN 246904) ALMADANI LAW mkang@hinshawlaw.com 2 4695 MacArthur Ct., Suite 1100 TAMI KAY LEE (SBN 224096) Newport Beach, CA 92660 tlee@hinshawlaw.com 3 Tel: (949) 877-7177 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP Fax: (949) 877-8757 350 South Grand Ave., Suite 3600 4 YMA@LawAlm.com Los Angeles, CA 90071-3476 Telephone: 213-680-2800 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Facsimile: 213-614-7399

6 Attorneys for Defendants SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY, 7 and HIPPO ANALYTICS INC. dba HIPPO INSURANCE SERVICES 8

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11

12 FIRDOS S. SHEIKH, M.D., an individual, Case No. 2:23-cv-01582-TLN-SCR

13 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

14 vs. Hon. Troy J. Nunley United States District Judge 15 SPINNAKER INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois Company; HIPPO ANALYTICS Hon. Sean C. Riordan 16 INC. dba HIPPO ENTERPRISES INC. dba United States Magistrate Judge HIPPO INSURANCE SERVICES, a 17 Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10 inclusive, 18 Defendants. 19 20 I. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 21 A. Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 22 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 23 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation 24 may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the 1 Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 2 acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 3 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from 4 public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that 5 are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The

6 parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section XIII(C), below, that this 7 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 8 under seal; Eastern District Civil Local Rule 251 sets forth the procedures that 9 must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 10 permission from the Court to file material under seal. 11 II. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 12 A. This action may call upon Defendants’ disclosure and production of 13 liability insurance agreements, and possibly private/protected information 14 regarding trade secrets, customer and pricing lists, and other valuable research, 15 development, commercial, financial information or financial condition, technical 16 and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public

17 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution or defense of 18 this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials may also 19 consist of, among other things, commercial information (including information 20 implicating privacy rights of third parties), and information otherwise generally 21 unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected 22 from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 23 common law. This action may also further call for Plaintiff’s disclosure and 24 production of private medical or mental health information or personally 1 identifiable information (e.g., social security numbers, dates of birth, etc.). 2 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt 3 resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 4 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that 5 the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in

6 preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 7 of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 8 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 9 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 10 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained 11 in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not 12 be part of the public record of this case. 13 III. DEFINITIONS 14 A. Action: This pending federal law suit 15 B. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation 16 of information or items under this Order.

17 C. “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Information (regardless of how 18 it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 19 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 20 the Good Cause Statement. 21 D. Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their 22 support staff). 23 24 1 E. Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 2 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 3 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 4 F. Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of 5 the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained

6 (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that 7 are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this 8 matter. 9 G. Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 10 pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to 11 serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 12 H. House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 13 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 14 counsel. 15 I. Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or 16 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action.

17 J. Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a party 18 to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 19 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law 20 firm which has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 21 K. Party: Any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 22 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and 23 their support staffs). 24 1 L. Producing Party: A Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 2 Discovery Material in this Action. 3 M. Professional Vendors: Persons or entities that provide litigation support 4 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or 5 demonstrations, and organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or

6 medium) and their employees and subcontractors. 7 N. Protected Material: Any Disclosure or Discovery Material that is 8 designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 9 O. Receiving Party: A Party that receives Disclosure or Discovery Material 10 from a Producing Party. 11 IV. SCOPE 12 A. The protections conferred by this Stipulation and Order cover not only 13 Protected Material (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or 14 extracted from Protected Material; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 15 compilations of Protected Material; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or 16 presentations by Parties or their Counsel that might reveal Protected Material.

17 B. Any use of Protected Material at trial shall be governed by the orders of 18 the trial judge. This Order does not govern the use of Protected Material at trial. 19 V. DURATION 20 A.

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

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sheikh v. Spinnaker Ins. Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sheikh-v-spinnaker-ins-co-caed-2025.