Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. First Mercury Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided August 17, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-09329·Unknown

Opinion

7 10 TUTOR PERINI BUILDING CORP., 11 an Arizona corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-09329-CAS-GJS

12 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 13 v. ORDER1

COMPANY, a New Jersey 15 corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 20 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 21 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 22 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 23 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 24 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 25 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 26 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 27 1 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 2 under the applicable legal principles. 4 This action is likely to involve confidential, attorney-client privileged 5 information relating to the underlying arbitration in Florida for which special 6 protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 7 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential materials and information 8 consist of, among other things, attorney and expert invoices with descriptions of 9 work and research being conducted in the underlying arbitration, confidential 10 business or financial information, information regarding confidential business 11 practices, or other confidential research or commercial information (including 12 information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise 13 generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise 14 protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, 15 or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 16 prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to 17 adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure 18 that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in 19 preparation for and in the conduct of trial , to address their handling at the end of the 20 litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 21 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 22 designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated 23 without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 24 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this 25 case. 26 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 27 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 1 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 2 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 3 to file material under seal. 4 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 5 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 6 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 7 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 8 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 9 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 10 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 11 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 12 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 13 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 14 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 15 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 16 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 17 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 18 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 19 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 20 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 21 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 22 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 23 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 24 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 25 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 26 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 27 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 1 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 2 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 3 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 4 2. DEFINITIONS 5 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 6 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 7 designation of information or items under this Order. 8 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 9 how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for 10 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 11 the Good Cause Statement. 12 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as 13 their support staff). 14 2.5 Designating Party: a Party or Non-Party that designates information or 15 items that it produces in disclosures or in responses to discovery as 16 “CONFIDENTIAL.” 17 2.6 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 or 20 generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 21 2.7 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. 24 2.8 House Counsel: attorneys who are employees of a party to this Action. 25 House Counsel does not include Outside Counsel of Record or any other outside 26 counsel. 27 2.9 Non-Party: any natural person, partnership, corporation, association or 1 2.10 Outside Counsel of Record: attorneys who are not employees of a 2 party to this Action but are retained to represent or advise a party to this Action and 3 have appeared in this Action on behalf of that party or are affiliated with a law firm 4 that has appeared on behalf of that party, and includes support staff. 5 2.11 Party: any party to this Action, including all of its officers, directors, 6 employees, consultants, retained experts, agents, and Outside Counsel of Record 7 (and their support staffs). 8 2.12 Producing Party: a Party or Non-Party that produces Disclosure or 9 Discovery Material in this Action.

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

Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. First Mercury Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. First Mercury Insurance Company (Tutor Perini Building Corp. v. First Mercury 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)