Sparks v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. North Carolina
DecidedJune 2, 2022
Docket4:17-cv-00151
StatusUnknown

This text of Sparks v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast (Sparks v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sparks v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast, (E.D.N.C. 2022).

Opinion

_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA .. EASTERN DIVISION Civil Action No. 4:17-cv-0151-D □

NICHOLAS SPARKS AND THE NICHOLAS _ ) SPARKS FOUNDATION, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) ) SELECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY OF ) THE SOUTHEAST, ) -) Defendant. ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER The parties having agreed to the following terms of confidentiality, and the Court having found that good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order in the above-styled proceeding (the “Litigation”), it is therefore hereby ORDERED that any person subject to this Stipulated Protective Order (this “Order”) — including, without limitation, the parties to this action, their representatives, agents, experts and consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order — shall adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: 1. This Order applies to all products of discovery and all information derived therefrom, including, but not limited to, all documents, objects or things, deposition testimony and interrogatory/request for admission responses, and any copies, excerpts or summaries thereof, obtained by any party pursuant to the requirements of any court order, requests for production of

documents, requests for admissions, interrogatories, or subpoena (“Discovery Materials’). This Order is limited to this Litigation or any appeal of this Litigation. 2. For the purposes of this Order, the term “document” means all tangible items, whether written, recorded or graphic, whether produced or created by a party or another person or means, whether produced pursuant to subpoena, to discovery request, by agreement, or otherwise. 3. For the purposes of this Order, “Confidential Discovery Material” shall mean any information that the producing party in good faith believes constitutes: i) a trade secret or other - confidential research, development, or commercial information; ii) information that identifies an individual, including an individual’s photograph, social security number, driver identification number, name, address (but not the 5-digit zip code), telephone number, and medical or disability information, but does not include information on vehicular accidents, driving violations, and driver’s status; or 111) any other category of information hereinafter given confidential status by the Court.

For the purposes of this Order, “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation” is a designation sought by Defendant based on Defendant’s assertion that such material is privileged as between’ Nicholas Sparks, Defendant, and the Pinto, Coates, Kyre & Bowers Law Firm and disclosure to a third party, including The Nicholas Sparks Foundation, would waive the privilege. For purposes of discovery only, Plaintiffs agree not to provide documents marked “Confidential-Attorney’ s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation” to any Foundation employee, former employee, Foundation board member or former board member who is not also a party to this case unless the Court rules, pursuant to Paragraph 13 below, that the material is not confidential or privileged. Plaintiffs agree not to claim waiver of privilege based on Defendant’s production of documents marked “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—

Not for the Foundation” in this case pursuant to this Order, but Plaintiffs reserve the right to seek a finding of waiver for documents marked “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation” for reasons other than production by Defendant in this case pursuant to this Order. Plaintiffs’ non-waiver agreement does not apply to production of such materials by any person other than Defendant. 4. Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, any Party is allowed to make use of Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation material and Confidential Discovery Material at trial without regard to any claims of privilege. This expressly includes the right to show such documents to any fact or expert witness. 5. Any person subject to this Order who receives from any other person any “Discovery Material” that is designated as “Confidential,” “Confidential-Attorney’s Eyes Only,” or “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation” (hereinafter “Confidential Discovery Material”), pursuant to the terms of this Order, shall not disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder. Nothing in this Order shall be construed in any way to control the use, dissemination, publication, or disposition by a party of any document, testimony, or information that legitimately, without breach of the terms of this Order, is a public record or in the public domain, or that is otherwise received at any time by that party outside the core of this Order. 6. With respect to the “Confidential,” “Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only,” or “Confidential-A ttorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation” portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the producing person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion as “Confidential,” “Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only,” or “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation ” by stamping or otherwise

clearly marking as “Confidential - Subject to Protective Order” or “Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only - Subject to Protective Order” or “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation — Subject to Protective Order” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility. 7. With respect to deposition transcripts and exhibits, a producing person or that person’s counsel may indicate on the record during the deposition that a question calls for confidential information, in which case the transcript of the designated testimony shall be marked “Confidential Information — Subject to Protective Order” or “Confidential Information - Attorney’s Eyes Only — Subject to Protective Order” or “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation — Subject to Protective Order” by the court reporter. Counsel for the producing party or the deponent shall have until thirty (30) calendar days after its earliest receipt of the deposition transcript in any format within which to inform all other Parties that portions of the transcript are to be designated “Confidential” or “Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only”, and the period may be extended by agreement of the Parties. No such deposition transcript shall be disclosed to any. individual other than the individuals described in Paragraphs 8 through 10 below and the deponent during these thirty (30) business days. 8. If at any time prior to the trial of this action, a producing person realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material that that person previously produced without limitation should be designated as “Confidential,” “Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only,” or “Confidential- Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation — Subject to Protective Order”, he or she

may so designate by apprising all parties in writing, and such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will thereafter be treated as “Confidential,” “Confidential - Attorney’s Eyes Only,” or “Confidential-Attorney’s/Other’s Eyes Only—Not for the Foundation — Subject to

Protective Order”, under the terms of this Order. In the case of produced documents, the producing party shall have ten (10) business days from the date of notice in which to provide stamped replacement versions of those documents. Additionally, the party receiving such notice shall make a reasonable, good faith effort to cure any prior dissemination that would aa be permitted under the corrected designation.

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

Related

Hall v. United Air Lines, Inc.
296 F. Supp. 2d 652 (E.D. North Carolina, 2003)
Ashcraft v. Conoco, Inc.
218 F.3d 288 (Fourth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Sparks v. Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sparks-v-selective-insurance-company-of-the-southeast-nced-2022.