United States of America v. Nationwide Medical, Inc.

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 20, 2022·No. 2:20-cv-07736·Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD Document 51 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:264

1 JUSTIN T. BERGER (SBN 250346) jberger@cpmlegal.com 2 THERESA E. VITALE (SBN 333993) tvitale@cpmlegal.com 3 COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road 4 Burlingame, California 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 5 Facsimile: (650) 692-3606

6 Attorneys for Relators

7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel. Case No. 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD 10 CURT CANALES and DOUG STIPULATED PROTECTIVE 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 1 13 v. 14 NATIONWIDE MEDICAL, INC., a 15 California Corporation; and DOES 1-100, 16 inclusive,

17 Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

28 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under ♼ Magistrate Judge Patricia Donahue’s Procedures. COL TA CW HE O TTF ,F PI IC TE RES & STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; Case No. 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD MCCARTHY, LLP Case 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD Document 51 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:265

1 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 2 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, 3 or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use 4 for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted, including, but 5 not limited to, confidential health information regarding non-parties. Accordingly, the 6 parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated 7 Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket 8 protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 9 from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are 10 entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 12 This action is likely to involve confidential health information regarding non- 13 parties for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 14 other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential materials and 15 information consist of, among other things, confidential health and medical records of 16 third-party patients, information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which 17 may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, 18 court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 19 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 20 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 21 confidential, to ensure the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such 22 material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end 23 of litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is 24 justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated 25 as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith 26 belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good 27 cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 28 /// ♼ COL TA CW HE O TTF ,F PI IC TE RES & STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; Case No. 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD 1 MCCARTHY, LLP Case 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD Document 51 Filed 09/20/22 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:266

2 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 3 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under 4 seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the 5 standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file 6 material under seal. 7 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 8 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good 9 cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County 10 of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 11 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 12 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause 13 showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper 14 evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected 15 Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure 16 or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not—without the submission of 17 competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under 18 seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good 19 cause. 20 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 21 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief 22 sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos 23 v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type 24 of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in 25 connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate 26 compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested 27 sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents 28 under seal must be provided by declaration. ♼ COL TA CW HE O TTF ,F PI IC TE RES & STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER; Case No. 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD 2 MCCARTHY, LLP Case 2:20-cv-07736-MWF-PD Document 51 Filed 09/20/22 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:267

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

United States of America v. Nationwide Medical, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2022).

United States of America v. Nationwide Medical, Inc. (United States of America v. Nationwide Medical, Inc.) — 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)
Garber v. Lego
11 F.3d 1197 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Abrams v. Communications Workers of America
187 F.R.D. 12 (District of Columbia, 1999)