Bennett et al v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING 27 Stipulation as Modified by the Court for a Protective Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 9/9/2015. (Hall, S)

1 STEPHEN M. HAYES (SBN 83583)
[e-mail]
2 STEPHEN P. ELLINGSON (SBN 136505)
[e-mail]
3 LAUREN M. CASE (SBN 280629)
[e-mail]
4 HAYES SCOTT BONINO
ELLINGSON & McLAY, LLP
5 203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 480
Redwood City, California 94065
6 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: 650.637.8071
7
8 Attorneys for Defendant
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
9
10 CRAIG A. MILLER (SBN 116030)
[e-mail]
11
PATRICK A. CALHOON (SBN 249149)
12 [e-mail]
225 Broadway, Suite 1310
13 San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: [phone]
14 Facsimile: [phone]
15

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16 HAROLD and DOROTHY BENNETT and
DOROTHY PICKERING as Conservator of the Person
17 and Estate of Harold Bennett
18
19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

20

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (FRESNO DIVISION)

21

HAROLD and DOROTHY BENNETT,

22

24

STIPULATION AND ORDER
GRANTING STIPULATION MODIFIED
BY THE COURT FOR A PROTECIVE
ORDER

25

(Doc. 27)

23

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB JLT

vs.

STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
26 COMPANY, and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive,
27
Defendant.
28
621048
-1STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS – CASE
NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB

I.
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS

1
2

Defendant State Farm General Insurance Company (“State Farm”) and Dorothy Pickering,

3

4 Plaintiff for decedent Dorothy Bennett and Conservator for Plaintiff Harrold Bennett (“Plaintiff”)
5 hereby stipulate to the following protective order with respect to and to accommodate State Farm’s
6 production of certain documents in response to requests for production of documents propounded in
7 this matter.
II.
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND CUSTODY OF THE SAME

8
9

State Farm will produce responsive documents to Plaintiffs’ document requests (the

10

11 “Documents”) that have been requested and withheld based upon the proprietary, trade secret,
12 confidential objections, without waiving those objections. The documents requested contain
13 information that is protected as proprietary, confidential, and includes trade-secrets. As such, a
14 court Order is necessary to protect State Farm’s Documents containing proprietary, confidential,
15 and trade secret information, and to bring within the Court’s jurisdiction any person who makes an
16 improper disclosure of those Documents. Production of those Documents hereinafter specified
17 shall take place by mail from and/or at:
18

Hayes Scott Bonino Ellingson & McLay, LLP
203 Redwood Shores Parkway, Suite 480
Redwood City, CA 94065

19
20

and shall proceed in the following manner:
21
a)

This Order shall be served on all parties;

b)

All parties and counsel for all parties herein shall be subject to the Court Order for

22
23
the purpose of limiting the dissemination of the Documents produced hereunder;
24
c)

Those persons viewing the requested Documents or copies of the same shall agree to

25
the terms and conditions set forth in the Inspection and Viewing Record Agreement attached hereto;
26
and
27
d)

Copies of all Documents produced by State Farm shall be designated

28
621048

-2-

STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS – CASE
NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB

1 “CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS SUBJECT TO STIPULATION AND COURT ORDER” or a
2 form of similar effect.
e)

3

In the event the parties agree to produce any documents pursuant to this stipulation

4 in advance of the court’s execution of the order, the parties hereby agree to fully abide by their
5 respective rights and obligations herein as a stipulation and contract and as though this stipulation
6 was approved and ordered by the court.
7

III.
PERSONS AUTHORIZED TO TAKE CUSTODY

8
9
10
11

Only attorneys for parties of record, and law clerks, secretaries, translators, and qualified
stenographers for said attorneys, and any experts actually hired for consultation and/or testimony in
connection with this case, shall be allowed to view and retain custody of copies of the “Documents”
or notes taken therefrom.

12
IV.
PROCEDURE FOR GRANTING CUSTODY

13

Prior to granting custody of copies of the subject Documents or notes taken therefrom, each

14

15 person who is to take such custody shall be brought within the personal jurisdiction of the Court,
16 including its contempt power, by signing a copy of this order signifying agreement to its provisions
17 and consent to jurisdiction of the Court over his or her person for any proceedings involving alleged
18 improper disclosures. Each such signature shall be made under penalty of perjury.
The failure to have each person sign a copy of this order prior to granting custody of copies

19

20 of the subject documents or notes taken therefrom, will result in the prohibition of the parties using
21 these documents for any purpose including this case.
22

V.
INSPECTION AND VIEWING RECORD AGREEMENT

23
24

No person shall be allowed or authorized to examine any portion of said Documents or notes
arising therefrom, or to discuss the contents of either, until such persons has:

25

(1)

27

Read this Court Order; and

(2)

26

Completed and signed the “Inspection and Viewing Record Agreement” attached

hereto as Exhibit “A”.

28
621048

-3-

STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS – CASE
NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB

VI.
JURISDICTION

1
2
3
4

Each person signing the “Inspection and Viewing Record Agreement” thereby agrees to be
subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for contempt and other appropriate proceedings in the event
of an alleged violation of this Protective Order.

5

VII.
NON-DISCLOSURE

6

No person authorized hereunder to view copies of the Documents or to make notes

7

8 therefrom, may disclose any portion of the subject matter or contents of either any person not
9 authorized hereunder.
VIII.
NON-DISSEMINATION

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

The Documents, copies of any portion of the same, contents of the Documents itself and all
notes arising from examination of said Documents, as well as discussions of the contents thereof,
shall be used only in connection with the present case of Harold Bennett, et al v. State Farm
General Ins. Co., United States District Court – Eastern District, Case Number 1:14-CV-01377
GEB, and shall be used for no other purposes whatsoever including, but not limited to, other
lawsuits, actions, claims or demands.
IX.
ALL DOCUMENTS REVEALED TO THE COURT SHALL BE SEALED

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

All motions or other Documents filed with the Court, if any, which reveal any portion of the
contents of the Documents, or notes arising therefrom, shall be sought to be filed under seal. in a
sealed envelope directly with the United States District Court – Eastern District and shall be
considered sealed Documents until further order of the Court. At any hearing or proceeding in
which any Document covered by this order is referred to, revealed or discussed, either party can
request that the hearing or proceeding be conducted in chambers. As to Aany records made of such
proceedings, either party can request the proceedings shall also be sealed until further order of the
Court, if any.

27
In the event a party wishes to file a protected Document under seal, the party SHALL

28
621048

-4-

STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS – CASE
NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB

1 comply with Local Rule 141. Issuance of this protective order alone, is insufficient justification for
2 filing protected Documents under seal.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15

Notably, this Court’s Local Rule 141 sets forth how a request to seal documents should
proceed. First, the requesting party should file on the public docket a Notice of Request to Seal
Documents. L.R. 141(a). Concurrently with this filing, the requesting party must lodge an
unredacted copy of the documents sought to be sealed. Also, the requesting party must lodge a
Request to Seal Documents, which addresses the specific pages of the documents sought to be
sealed and the information contained thereon and provides an explanation for why the information
should be shielded from public view. L.R. 141(b). Ideally, at this time, the moving party would
lodge also a proposed redacted copy of the documents with the confidential information obliterated,
if any portion of the document is not subject to sealing. The email containing this lodged
information must be “carbon copied” to opposing counsel unless there is sufficient explanation set
forth why the matter should proceed ex parte. If there is no objection to the request to seal (L.R.
141(c)), the Court must determine whether each of the pages of the document should be shielded
from public view or to what extent they should be.

16
X.
NON-WAIVER

17

The production of the subject Documents for inspection, viewing and custody shall not

18

19 constitute a waiver of State Farm’s right to claim in this lawsuit or otherwise, that said Documents
20 or any Documents described therein are privileged or otherwise non-discoverable or admissible.
21

XI.
SURRENDER OF DOCUMENTS

22
23
24
25
26
27

At the conclusion of the subject litigation, all documents provided, and any copies thereof,
under this protective order shall be returned to State Farm’s counsel, with a declaration, signed by
Plaintiffs’ counsel under penalty of perjury, that all documents provided, and any copies thereof,
under the protective order have been returned to State Farm’s counsel. The Documents are to be
returned as soon as possible and no later than seven (7) days from the date of the dismissal of the
action with the declaration.

28
621048

-5-

STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS – CASE
NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

1

2 Dated: September 8, 2015

LAW OFFICES OF CRAIG A. MILLER

3
4
By_/s/ Patrick Calhoon (as authorized on September 8, 2015)
CRAIG A. MILLER
PATRICK A. CALHOON
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
HAROLD and DOROTHY BENNETT

5
6
7
8
9

Dated: Septmebr 8, 2015

HAYES SCOTT BONINO ELLINGSON & McLAY, LLP

10
11
By

12

/s/ Lauren M. Case
STEPHEN M. HAYES
STEPHEN P. ELLINGSON
LAUREN M. CASE
Attorneys for Defendant
STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY

13
14
15
16
17

[PROPOSED] ORDER
18
Based upon the stipulation of the parties, the Court ORDERS:
19
The stipulation for the protective order is GRANTED as MODIFIED by the Court as set
20
forth above in paragraph IX.
21
22 IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
Dated:

September 9, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston

24

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
621048

-6-

STIPULATION & PROTECTIVE ORDER RE PRODUCTION OF STATE FARM’S DOCUMENTS – CASE
NO. 1:14-CV-01377 GEB