Fadem v. American States Preferred Insurance Company

Filing 33

ORDER granting in part 29 Motion for Protective Order. The parties shall file a proposed protective order for the Court's review no later than December 27, 2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 12/19/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM) (Main Document 33 replaced on 12/20/2013) (EDS).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

SCOTT FADEM,

10
Plaintiff(s),
11
vs.
12
13

AMERICAN STATES PREFERRED
INSURANCE COMPANY,

14
Defendant(s).

15

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:13-cv-01213-RCJ-NJK

ORDER

16

Before the Court is Defendant American States Preferred Insurance Company’s Amended

17

Motion for Entry of Protective Order (Docket No. 29). Plaintiff filed a responsive brief (Docket No.

18

31). The Court finds that a reply on the matter is not necessary. Additionally, the Court finds that a

19

hearing on the motion is not necessary. See Local Rule 78-2. The motion is hereby GRANTED in

20

part as provided in this order.

21

Defendant filed the present motion seeking to enter a protective order in this case. According

22

to Defendant, it cannot properly respond to Plaintiff’s discovery requests without a protective order

23

because Plaintiff has requested documents that contain trade secrets and other business sensitive

24

information, including Defendant’s claim handling guidelines. Plaintiff opposes the motion on the

25

grounds that he does not believe that the claims handling guidelines are confidential and/or trade

26

secrets.

27

...

28

...

1

Having considered the matter, the Court hereby ORDERS the parties to meet and confer, no

2

later than December 23, 2013, regarding a joint protective order that can be entered in this case.1

3

The Court further ORDERS that the parties shall file a proposed protective order for the Court’s

4

review no later than December 27, 2013. Once a protective order is entered, Defendants shall

5

designate documents as it sees fit and produce those documents to Plaintiff’s attorney. To the extent

6

Plaintiff wishes to dispute Defendant’s designations for the claims handling guidelines, it may do

7

so through the normal process that will be included in the protective order.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED: December 19, 2013.

10
11
12
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that protective orders are fairly routine and almost never require Court
intervention. The Court stresses that the parties must make every effort to resolve any differences
regarding the protective order amongst themselves. To the extent the dispute between the parties
concerns the designation of Defendant’s claims handling guidelines, that dispute should be resolved
after the entry of a protective order and is not grounds for failing to enter the protective order.
-2-