Viesturs Petersons v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company

District Court, C.D. California·Decided June 22, 2021·No. 2:20-cv-00661·Unknown

Opinion

VIESTURS PETERSONS, Case No. 2:20-cv-00661-CAS-GJSx individually, ORDER GRANTING Plaintiff, TIPULSTED PROTECTIVE ORDER vy. 1S || TRANSAMERICA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Iowa Corporation: and DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, Defendants.

1} 4. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS/GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential and proprietary actuarial, business, technical, and financial information as well as private information of Plaintiff Viesturs Petersons (“Plaintiff”) or the insured for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff and Defendant Transamerica Life Insurance Company (“TLIC”) hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and I1 || use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3 (Filing Protected Material), below, that this Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79- 5 and the Court’s Guide to Electronically Filing Under Seal Documents in Civil Cases set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY does not—without the submission

| || of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass'n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Acknowledgment: the “Acknowledgment and Agreement to be Bound” form attached as Exhibit A to this Order. 2.2 Action: Viesturs Petersons, individually v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, et al. Case No. 2:20-cv-00661-CAS-GJSx. 2.3. Challenging Party: A Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order. 2.4 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: Confidential proprietary or commercially sensitive business and financial information, trade secrets, and personal information which is not generally known or publicly available and which

| || the Designating Party would not normally reveal to third parties or information that otherwise meets the standard for protection set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this Action. 2.5 Counsel: Outside Counsel of Record and House Counsel (as well as their support staff). 2.6 Designating Party: A Party or Non-Party that designates information or items that it produces or that are produced in disclosures or in response to discovery as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 2.7 Disclosure or Discovery Material: All items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. 2.8 Expert: A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or as a consultant in this Action and who is not a past or current employee of a Party or a current employee of a Party’s competitor and who, at the time of retention, is not anticipated to become an employee of a Party or a competitor of a Party. This definition includes a professional jury or trial consultant retained in connection with this litigation. 2.9 “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEYS’ EYES □ ONLY” Information or Items: Extremely sensitive “Confidential Information or Items,” disclosure of which to another Party or Non-Party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means.

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

Viesturs Petersons v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Viesturs Petersons v. Transamerica Life Insurance Company (Viesturs Petersons 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)