Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Aida Horowitz and Socorro Perez v. Farmers New World Life Insurance Company

January 5, 2011

AIDA HOROWITZ AND SOCORRO PEREZ, PLAINTIFFS,
v.
FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION AND DOES 1-5, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Margaret A. Nagle United States Magistrate Judge

PROTECTIVE ORDER ENTERED PURSUANT TO THE STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and based on the parties'Stipulated Protective Order ("Stipulation"), filed onDecember 9, 2010, the terms of the protective order to which the parties have agreed are adopted as a protective order of this Court except to the extent, as set forth below, that those terms have been modified by the Court's deletion of Paragraph 1 of the Stipulation, renumbering of the following paragraphs, and substantive amendment of the paragraphs now set forth as Paragraphs 12 and 15 of the Stipulation.

The parties are expressly cautioned that the designation of any information, document, or thing as "CONFIDENTIAL" or Protected Information or other designation(s) used by parties does not, in and of itself, create any entitlement to file such information, document, or thing, in whole or in part, under seal. Accordingly, reference to this Order or to the parties' designation of any information, document, or thing as "CONFIDENTIAL" or Protected Information or other designation(s) used by parties is wholly insufficient to warrant a filing 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. The parties' mere designation of any information, document, or thing as "CONFIDENTIAL" or Protected Information or other designation(s) used by parties does not - without the submission of competent evidence, in the form of a declaration or declarations, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable - constitute good cause.

Further, if sealing is requested in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, as opposed to 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 protectible 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 protectible 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.

TERMS OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

1. Nondisclosure of Protected Information. Documents, tangible items, discovery responses, deposition testimony, or other material or media containing confidential information disclosed or produced by any party in this litigation are referred to as "Protected Information." Except as otherwise indicated below, all documents, tangible items, discovery responses, deposition testimony or other information designated by the producing party as "Confidential" and which are disclosed or produced to the attorneys for other parties to this litigation are Protected Information and are entitled to confidential treatment as described below.

2. Marking of Protected Information. Any designation of Protected Information made in accordance with this Protective Order also shall apply to all documents that reproduce, paraphrase, summarize or otherwise contain information from the documents, materials, testimony, and information so designated. Documents, materials, testimony, and information shall be designated as follows:

(a) Hard Copy and/or Imaged Documents. Documents containing Protected Information may be designated by any party as "confidential" by marking each page of the document so designated with a stamp stating "CONFIDENTIAL."

(b) Electronic Documents Produced In Native Form. To avoid altering documents produced in native form, the producing party shall stamp or label the front of any CD, DVD, or other electronic media containing any group of produced documents with the term "CONFIDENTIAL."

(c) Non-written materials. For materials produced in non-written form, the party making the designation shall notify all parties in writing of the designation being made and describe in detail the specific materials that are being designated. In the case of non-written media, such as videotapes, DVDs, hard drives, or computer diskettes, the producing party shall prominently stamp or label the media produced with the term "CONFIDENTIAL."

3. Published Documents. Protected Information shall not include materials that on their face show they have been published to the public.

4. Declassification. A party will designate information as "Confidential" only if it believes in good faith that it contains Confidential Information. If a party believes that material has been improperly designated as Protected Information subject to this Protective Order, that party's counsel ("Challenging Party") shall so notify, in writing, counsel for the party or other person or entity producing the Protected Information ("Responding Entity"). The Challenging Party and Responding Entity shall then meet and confer in good faith concerning such disputed designation within seven (7) days of receipt of the notice. If the dispute is not resolved by mutual agreement, the Challenging Party may move the Court to remove the confidential designation of the documents or materials produced. Information designated as Protected Information shall remain subject to the terms of this Protective Order pending the Court's determination of any motion for removal such protection. On any such motion the Responding Entity will bear the burden of proof that the Confidential designation in question should not be removed.

5. Additional Orders. This Protective Order shall not abrogate any party or other entity's right to refuse to produce Protected Information, or to redact certain portions thereof, upon proper grounds, including without limitation, on the basis of any applicable privilege or statute. Furthermore, any party may also seek further protective orders as they may deem appropriate to safeguard Protected Information.

6. Use of Protected Information. Protected Information shall not be used or shown, disseminated, copied, or in any way communicated to anyone for any purpose whatsoever, except as provided in Paragraph 7 below. Protected Information shall be used solely for the purpose of preparation and trial of this litigation, and for no other purpose. This prohibition does not prevent a party or entity from using or disclosing information obtained independently of a Responding Entity and does not prevent any party from disclosing any of its own Protected Information to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.