Esurance Insurance Company v. Westchester Fire Insurance Company et al

Filing 101

STIPULATION AND ORDER Regarding Authenticity of Documents. Signed by Judge Richard Seeborg on 9/14/16. (cl, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2016)

1 THOMAS E. MULVIHILL, ESQ. (SBN 129906)
TAMIKO A. DUNHAM, ESQ. (SBN 233455)
2 ROSEANNE C. LAZZAROTTO, ESQ. (SBN 251001)
BOORNAZIAN, JENSEN & GARTHE
3
A Professional Corporation
4 555 12th Street, Suite 1800
Oakland, CA 94607
5 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
6
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7
ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Wisconsin corporation
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 ESURANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Wisconsin corporation,
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
WESTCHESTER FIRE INSURANCE
)
COMPANY, a Pennsylvania corporation;
STEADFAST INSURANCE COMPANY, a )
)
Delaware corporation; and WILLIAM
GALLAGHER ASSOCIATES INSURANCE )
)
BROKERS, INC., a Massachusetts
)
corporation,
)
Defendants.
)

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00862-RS
PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING
AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS
The Hon. Richard Seeborg
Action Filed: February 25, 2015

19
20

THE COURT, having considered the Stipulation of the Parties and good cause appearing,

21 orders as follows:
22

1.

Documents produced to a party to this action by another party or by any non-party business

23 entity in response to compulsory process (e.g., subpoena, a document request served upon a party pursuant
24 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, or otherwise) in connection with the parties’ investigation of the circumstances
25 underlying this action are deemed authentic for the purposes of this action only, absent good cause. Good
26 cause would include issues relating to the completeness of the document (e.g., missing or incomplete pages)
27
28
-1PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS
U.S.D.C. Northern District Case No. 3:15-cv-00862-RS

1 or any conditions in the actual document or the manner in which it was produced that bring into question
2 whether the document was actually generated by the relevant party or non-party business entity.
3

2.

Documents produced to a party to this action by another party or by any non-party business

4 entity in response to compulsory process (e.g., subpoena, a document request served upon a party pursuant
5 to Fed. R. Civ. P. 34, or otherwise) in connection with the parties’ investigation of the circumstances
6 underlying this action shall be deemed to satisfy the evidentiary foundation requirements for
7 admissibility, including under Fed. R. Evid Rule 803 (6), for the purposes of this lawsuit only,
8 absent good cause and subject to all other evidentiary objections to admissibility of the documents,
9 all of which other objections are retained by the parties. Good cause would include circumstances
10 under which the source of the information featured in the document or the circumstances of its
11 preparation indicate a lack of trustworthiness.
12
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14
15 DATED: ______________, 2016
9/14
16
17

_____________________________________
THE HONORABLE RICHARD SEEBORG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2PROPOSED ORDER REGARDING AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS
U.S.D.C. Northern District Case No. 3:15-cv-00862-RS