Starr Indemnity & Liability Ins. Co. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co.

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. California
DecidedFebruary 8, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-00791
StatusUnknown

This text of Starr Indemnity & Liability Ins. Co. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co. (Starr Indemnity & Liability Ins. Co. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel 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
Starr Indemnity & Liability Ins. Co. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

1 MICHAEL J. CUMMINS (184181) R. HUDSON HOLLISTER (323133) 2 GIBSON ROBB & LINDH LLP 1255 Powell Street 3 Emeryville, California 94608 Telephone: (415) 348-6000 4 Facsimile: (415) 348-6001 Email: mcummins@gibsonrobb.com 5 rhollister@gibsonrobb.com

6 Attorneys for Plaintiff STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY 7 COMPANY

9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12 STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY No. 2:21-cv-00791 KJM DB INSURANCE COMPANY 13 STIPULATED CIVIL NON-TRIAL PROTECTIVE ORDER 14 Plaintiff,

15 v.

16 ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO.,

17 Defendant(s).

19 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of 21 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure 22 and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 23 the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective 24 Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures 25 or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 26 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the 27 applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that 1 Civil Local Rule 141 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be 2 applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 3 1.1 Specific Information to be Protected 4 Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(c), Plaintiff STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY 5 (“Starr”) seeks to have the following information be subject to the Order and alleges as follows: 6 A. Starr’s policies and procedures for determining and rating the risks for issuing or 7 renewing marine insurance policies, and documents evidencing or relating to such policies and 8 procedures. Starr is a leading insurance company and such documents and information merit 9 protection by this Court as such documents and information constitute Starr’s proprietary, financial, 10 and otherwise confidential information. If such documents and information are publicly disclosed, 11 Starr will be prejudiced and harmed in that Starr’s competitors will have access to Starr’s 12 underwriting policies and procedures and could use such information to undercut and otherwise 13 harm Starr in the insurance market, even outside the context of the marine insurance market. Due to 14 the significant risk of financial harm in disclosing the aforementioned documents, a court order is 15 more appropriate than a private agreement between the parties, as this will better protect Starr from 16 inadvertent disclosure and provide appropriate procedures should such information be inadvertently 17 disclosed. Additionally, such an order will provide the appropriate policies for the disposition of 18 appropriately designated materials after the conclusion of this matter. 19 B. Documents pertaining to Starr’s underwriting policies. Starr is a leading insurance 20 company and such documents and information merit protect by this Court as such documents and 21 information constitute Starr’s proprietary, financial, and otherwise confidential information. If such 22 documents and information are publicly disclosed, Starr will be prejudiced and harmed in that 23 Starr’s competitors will have access to Starr’s underwriting policies and procedures and could use 24 such information to undercut and otherwise harm Starr in the insurance market, even outside the 25 context of the marine insurance market. Due to the significant risk of financial harm in disclosing the 26 aforementioned documents, a court order is more appropriate than a private agreement between the 27 parties, as this will better protect Starr from inadvertent disclosure and provide appropriate 1 provide the appropriate policies for the disposition of appropriately designated materials after the 2 conclusion of this matter. 3 C. Documents relating to the underwriting of the primary and excess policies issued to 4 Defendant ROSS ISLAND SAND & GRAVEL CO. (“Ross Island”). Starr is a leading insurance 5 company and such documents and information merit protect by this Court as such documents and 6 information constitute Starr’s proprietary, financial, and otherwise confidential information. While 7 these documents are more tailored towards the pending litigation, such documents and information 8 still reveal Starr’s underwriting policies and procedures, and more definitively illustrate how such 9 policies and procedures are applied to a specific insured. If such documents and information are 10 publicly disclosed, Starr will be prejudiced and harmed in that Starr’s competitors will have access 11 to Starr’s underwriting policies and procedures and could use such information to undercut and 12 otherwise harm Starr in the insurance market, even outside the context of the marine insurance 13 market. Due to the significant risk of financial harm in disclosing the aforementioned documents, a 14 court order is more appropriate than a private agreement between the parties, as this will better 15 protect Starr from inadvertent disclosure and provide appropriate procedures should such 16 information be inadvertently disclosed. Additionally, such an order will provide the appropriate 17 policies for the disposition of appropriately designated materials after the conclusion of this matter. 18 2. DEFINITIONS 19 2.1 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of 20 information or items under this Order. 21 2.2 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of how it is 22 generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of 23 Civil Procedure 26(c). 24 2.3 Counsel (without qualifier): Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well 25 as their support staff). 26 2.4 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it 27 produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL.” 1 2.5 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless of the medium 2 or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 3 transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to 4 discovery in this matter. 5 2.6 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the 6 litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a 7 consultant in this action. 8 2.7 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this action. House Counsel 9 does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside counsel. 10 2.8 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal 11 entity not named as a Party to this action. 12 2.9 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a party to this action 13 but are retained to represent or advise a party to this action and have appeared in this action on 14 behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf of that party. 15 2.10 Party: any party to this action, including all of its officers, directors, employees, 16 consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their support staffs). 17 2.11 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or Discovery 18 Material in this action.

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)
Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Starr Indemnity & Liability Ins. Co. v. Ross Island Sand & Gravel Co., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/starr-indemnity-liability-ins-co-v-ross-island-sand-gravel-co-caed-2022.