Steven Draeger v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided December 28, 2020·No. 2:19-cv-10478·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA—WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 || STEVEN DRAEGER and DARA Case No. 2:19-cv-10478-CAS-GJSx DRAEGER 12 [FROFOSED| ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs, TIPULATED PROTECTIVE Vv. 14 TRANSAMERICA LIFE 15 || INSURANCE COMPANY, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1 1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential and 3 || proprietary actuarial, business, technical, and financial information as well as 4 || private information of Plaintiffs Steven Draeger and Dara Draeger (“Plaintiffs”) or 5 || the insured for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any 6 || purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, 7 || Plaintiffs and Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“TLIC”) hereby 8 || stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order 9 || (‘Order’). The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 10 || protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it 11 || affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 12 || items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal 13 || principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 (Filing 14 || Protected Material), below, that this Protective Order does not entitle them to file 15 || confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 and the Court’s Guide to 16 || Electronically Filing Under Seal Documents in Civil Cases set forth the procedures 17 || that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks 18 || permission from the Court to file material under seal. 19 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 20 || proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 21 || good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City 22 || and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. 23 || Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony 24 || Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective 25 || orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or 26 || compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be 27 || made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The 28 || parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL -2-

1 || or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without 2 || the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material 3 || sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise 4 || protectable—constitute good cause. 5 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 6 || then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 7 || the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 8 || protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 9 || 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 10 || or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 11 || seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 12 || and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 13 || supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 14 || declaration. 15 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 16 || its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 17 || If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 18 || only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 19 || shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 20 || entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 21 || 2. DEFINITIONS 22 2.1 Acknowledgment: the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to be 23 || Bound” form attached as Exhibit A to this Order. 24 2.2 Action: Steven Draeger and Dara Draeger v. Transamerica Life 25 || Insurance Company, Case No. 2:19-cv-10478-CAS-GJSx. 26 2.3 Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the 27 || designation of information or items under this Order. 28

1 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Confidential proprietary or 2 || commercially sensitive business and financial information, trade secrets, and 3 || personal information which is not generally known or publicly available and which 4 || the Designating Party would not normally reveal to third parties or information that 5 || otherwise meets the standard for protection set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal 6 || Rules of Civil Procedure. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 7 || designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 8 || without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential non-public 9 || manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of 10 || this Action. 11 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 12 || their support staff). 13 2.6 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or 14 || items that it produces or that are produced in disclosures or in response to discovery 15 |) as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES 16 | ONLY.” 17 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless 18 || of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 19 || among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced 20 || or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.8 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 22 || pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as 23 || an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action and who is not a past or current 24 || employee of a Party or a current employee of a Party’s competitor and who, at the 25 || time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or a 26 || competitor of a Party. This definition includes a professional jury or trial 27 || consultant retained in connection with this litigation. 28

l 2.9 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” 2 || Information or Items: Extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” 3 || disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of 4 || serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. 5 2.10 House Counsel: Attorneys who are employees for a Party or of an 6 || entity that owns an interest in a Party and is responsible for controlling or directing 7 || the litigation. House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any 8 || other outside counsel. 9 2.11 Non-Party: Any natural person, partnership, corporation, association, 10 || or other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 11 2.12 Outside Counsel of Record: Attorneys who are not employees of a 12 || party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 13 || have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 14 || that has appeared on behalf of that party, including support staff.

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

Steven Draeger v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2020).

Steven Draeger v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Steven Draeger v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company) — 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)