ViacomCBS Inc. v. Great Divide Insurance Company

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 28, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-00400
StatusUnknown

This text of ViacomCBS Inc. v. Great Divide Insurance Company (ViacomCBS Inc. v. Great Divide Insurance Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
ViacomCBS Inc. v. Great Divide Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

Case 2|/P1-cv-00400-ODW-AFM Document 35 Filed 02/28/22 Pagelof21 Page ID #:303

1 || Kirk Pasich (SBN 94242) KPasich@PasichLLP.com 2 Pamela Woods (SBN 101520) PWoods@PasichLLP.com 3 || Christopher Pasich (SBN 299191) 4 CPasich@PasichLLP.com Caitlin S. Oswald (SBN 330974) 5, || COswald@PasichLLP.com PASICH LLP 6 || 10880 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, California 90024 7 || Telephone: 313-7860 8 Facsimile: (424) 313-7890 9 || Attorneys for Plaintiff 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT re 12 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA C) 13 || VIACOMCBS INC., a Delaware Case No. 2:21-cv-00400-ODW- 1 corporation, AFM wy 15 Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Os 16 V. ORDER 17 || GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE 18 || COMPANY, a North Dakota corporation, 19 Defendant. 20 91 | AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM 22 23 24/1. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 25 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of 26 || confidential, proprietary and/or private or personal information for which 27 □□ special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 28 other than prosecuting this litigation is warranted. STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2|/P1-cv-00400-ODW-AFM Document 35 Filed 02/28/22 Page 2of21 Page ID #:304

1 Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court 2. ||to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties 3 ||acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 4 || disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords 5 ||from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or 6 ||items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable 7 || legal principles. 8|/2. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 9 This Action is likely to involve discovery of confidential, 10 || proprietary, and/or sensitive private or personal information for which 11 || special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose 12 || other than prosecuting this action is warranted. Oo 13 Such confidential, proprietary, and sensitive materials and -— 14|/information consist of, among other things, confidential business or x 15 || financial information, information regarding confidential business Os 16]! practices, or other confidential commercial information, sensitive 17 || personal information (including information implicating privacy rights of 18 third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, 19 ||or information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from 20 || disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or 21 |}common law. 22 Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the 23 || prompt resolution of disputes over the confidentiality of discovery 24 || materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to 25 || keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 26 || necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 27 || trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the 28 || ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this —_———saporaTep PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2|/P1-cv-00400-ODW-AFM Document 35 Filed 02/28/22 Page3of21 Page ID #:305

1 ||matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be 2 || designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 3 || designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 4 || confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should 5 ||not be part of the public record of this case. Neither party has yet agreed 6 ||that any particular document or type of document is subject to protection 7 || hereunder and each reserves all rights to object to a designation. 8|/3. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING 9 UNDER SEAL 10 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, 11 || below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file re 12 || confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the Oo 13 || procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied -— 14|/when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under x 15 || seal. Os 16 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access 17 || to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non- 18 || dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under 19 ||seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 20 || 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210- 21 || 11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 22 ||577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good 23 ||cause showing). Furthermore, a specific showing of good cause or 24 ||compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal 25 || justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material (defined 26 || below) that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 27 || designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or 28 || HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL -- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not— —_————saporaTap PROTECT ORDER

Case 2|/P1-cv-00400-ODW-AFM Document 35 Filed 02/28/22 Page4of21 Page ID #:306

1 || without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, 2 || establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as 3 ||confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 4 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion 5 |lor trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing 6 ||must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve 7 □□ □□□ specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass‘n, 8 ||605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of 9 ||information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 10 || seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 11 || protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts re 12 || and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent Oo 13 || evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be - 14] provided by declaration. x 15 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise ©s 16||protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential 17 || portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted 18 || version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or 19 || otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any 20 || application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 21 || should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 22||4. DEFINITIONS 23 4.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit. 24 4.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 25 || designation of information or items under this Order. 26 4.3 CONFIDENTIAL Information or Items: information 27 || (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible 28 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

Case 2/P1-cv-00400-ODW-AFM Document 35 Filed 02/28/22 Page5of21 Page ID #:307

1 || things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 2 ||26(c), and as specified above in the Good Cause Statement. 3 4.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as 4 || well as their support staff).

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
ViacomCBS Inc. v. Great Divide Insurance Company, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/viacomcbs-inc-v-great-divide-insurance-company-cacd-2022.