William Salpaka v. Ohio Security Insurance

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJune 6, 2022
Docket2:21-cv-04435
StatusUnknown

This text of William Salpaka v. Ohio Security Insurance (William Salpaka v. Ohio Security Insurance) 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
William Salpaka v. Ohio Security Insurance, (C.D. Cal. 2022).

Opinion

11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 2288 {06413573.1} STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER PLL elaG & repooC dranyaM 0541 etiuS ,retneC oredacrabmE owT 11149 AC ,ocsicnarF naS 0074-646 )514( Case 2:21-cv-04435-FMO-SK Document 24 Filed 06/06/22 Page 1 of 17 Page ID #:135 NICHOLAS J. BOOS (SBN 233399) nboos@maynardcooper.com NORMAN LAU (SBN 253690) nlau@maynardcooper.com MAYNARD COOPER & GALE LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1450 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 646-4700 Facsimile: (205) 254-1999 NOTE: CHANGES MADE BY THE COURT Attorneys for Defendant OHIO SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WILLIAM SALPAKA, an individual Case No. 2:21-cv-04435-FMO-SK and in his capacity as TRUSTEE OF THE SALPAKA REVOCABLE TRUST U/T 4-26-89; VIRGINA SALPAKA, an STIPULATED PROTECTIVE individual and in her capacity as ORDER EXCEPT AS MODIFIED TRUSTEE OF THE SALPAKA BY THE COURT REVOCABLE TRUST U/T 4-26-89

Plaintiffs,

v. LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Defendants.

It is hereby stipulated by and between Plaintiffs William Sapaka and Virginia Salpaka, individually and in their capacities as Trustees of The Salpaka Revocable Trust, on the one hand, and Ohio Security Insurance Company, on the other hand, by and through their respective attorneys of record, as follows: A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may Case 2:21-cv-04435-FMO-SK Document 24 Filed 06/06/22 Page 2 of 17 Page ID #:136

1 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 2 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 3 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 4 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 5 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 6 under the applicable legal principles. 7 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 8 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 9 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 10 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and 11 from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 12 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 13 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 14 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 15 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 16 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 17 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 21 keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses 22 of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their 23 handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order 24 for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 25 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that 26 nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a 27 confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part 28 of the public record of this case. {06413573.1} 2 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:21-cv-04435-FMO-SK Document 24 Filed 06/06/22 Page 3 of 17 Page ID #:137

1 C. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER 2 SEAL 3 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 4 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 5 under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed 6 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 7 to file material under seal. 8 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 9 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 10 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 11 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 12 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 13 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 14 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 15 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 16 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 17 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 18 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 19 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 20 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 21 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, 22 then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and 23 the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be 24 protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 25 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed 26 or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party 27 seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts 28 and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence {06413573.1} 3 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER Case 2:21-cv-04435-FMO-SK Document 24 Filed 06/06/22 Page 4 of 17 Page ID #:138

1 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by 2 declaration. 3 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 4 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 5 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 6 only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, 7 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 8 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 9 2. DEFINITIONS 10 2.1 Action: William Salpaka, et al. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 11 et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04435-FMO-SK. 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).

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)
Serbin v. Ziebart International Corp.
11 F.3d 1163 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
William Salpaka v. Ohio Security Insurance, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/william-salpaka-v-ohio-security-insurance-cacd-2022.