The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Walking U Ranch, LLC

District Court, C.D. California·Decided January 21, 2021·No. 2:18-cv-02482·Unknown

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY Case No. 2:18-cv-2482-CAS (GJSx) 11 COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT, a Hon. Christina A. Snyder Connecticut corporation; Hon. Gail J. Standish 12 TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF 13 AMERICA, a Connecticut PROTECTIVE ORDER1 corporation, 14

15 Plaintiff,

16 v.

17 WALKING U RANCH, LLC, a California limited liability company; 18 KATHLEEN P. MARCH, an individual; PATRICK F. BRIGHT, an 19 individual; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, 20 21 Defendant. 22 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION 23

24 25 26 27 1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 3 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 4 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 5 be warranted. Accordingly, the Court shall enter the following Protective Order. 6 The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 7 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 8 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 9 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 10 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 11 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 12 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 13 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 14 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 15 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 16 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 17 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 18 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 19 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 20 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 21 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 22 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 23 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 24 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 25 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 26 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 27 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 1 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 2 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 3 record of this case. 4 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 5 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 6 Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; 7 Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 8 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 9 material under seal. 10 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 11 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 12 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 13 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 14 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 15 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 16 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 17 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 18 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 19 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 20 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 21 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 22 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 23 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 24 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 25 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 26 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 27 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 1 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 2 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 3 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 4 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 5 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 6 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 7 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 8 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 9 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 10 2. DEFINITIONS 11 2.1 Action: This pending federal lawsuit. 12 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 13 designation of information or items under this Order. 14 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 15 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 16 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 17 the Good Cause Statement. 18 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 19 their support staff). 20 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 21 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 22 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 23 2.6 Disclosure or Discovery Material: all items or information, regardless 24 of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, 25 among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or 26 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 27 2.7 Expert: a person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter 1 an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action. 2 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 3 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 4 counsel. 5 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 6 other legal entity not named as a Party to this action. 7 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 8 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 9 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 10 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 11 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 12 employees, consultants, retained experts, and Outside Counsel of Record (and their 13 support staffs).

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

The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Walking U Ranch, LLC, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Walking U Ranch, LLC (The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut v. Walking U Ranch, LLC) — 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)