Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00649/USCOURTS-caed-2_23-cv-00649-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

RLC INDUSTRIES CO. and ROSEBURG 

FOREST PRODUCTS CO., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

LIBERTY INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:23-cv-0649 TLN SCR 

ORDER 

 On November 7, 2024, the Court heard a discovery dispute involving Plaintiff’s 

confidential designations of certain discovery information. ECF No. 80. At the time, the Court 

ordered certain specified confidential designations removed and tentatively found the other 

confidential designations to be proper. The Court set a deadline of November 21 for Defendant to 

demonstrate with particularity why good cause for any remaining designation is lacking and for 

Plaintiff to further argue for the existence of good cause.1

 ECF No. 90. 

On November 21, the parties submitted a joint statement identifying only three remaining 

documents—deposition exhibits—at issue in this dispute. ECF No. 93. The Court provisionally 

1

 In the relevant minute order, ECF No. 90, the Court erroneously stated that Plaintiff would need 

to show why good cause is lacking and that Defendant might further argue for the existence of 

good cause. In this dispute, it is Plaintiff who must ultimately demonstrate good cause. 

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 108 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2 

granted the parties’ request to file that joint statement and supporting exhibits under seal. ECF 

Nos. 91 & 92. The Court resolves this remaining portion of the dispute as explained below. 

Deposition Exhibits 4 and 43: These exhibits are PDF versions of computerized claim 

file notes created and maintained by Ohio Casualty Insurance Company and Defendant Liberty 

Insurance Company. More than 280 claim file entries occupy more than 250 pages in the 

exhibits, though it appears the most sensitive information therein has already been redacted. 

While the Court has little doubt that some of the unredacted information contained in these 

exhibits is not confidential, much of that information could implicate Plaintiff’s attempts to 

resolve ongoing, related litigation. As discussed during the November 7 hearing, that interest 

gives rise to good cause. See Estate of Sanchez v. Cnty. of Stanislaus, 2019 WL 5431875, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 1, 2019) (good cause to keep materials confidential when would harm position in 

parallel proceedings). Moreover, unencumbered disclosure of the claim file notes might in the 

future deter other insureds from communicating in candor with insurers, for fear that such 

communication would be disclosed without confidentiality protections in subsequent litigation. 

Such public policy concerns are properly considered in determining whether to preserve 

confidentiality of discovery materials. See, e.g., Fidelity Nat. Financial, Inc. v. National Union 

Fire Ins. Co., 2014 WL 1393743, at *8 (noting “public policy concerns underlying” insurancerelated non-disclosure statute in denying public use of memorandum in insurance dispute). In 

balancing the parties’ interests, the Court finds good cause to maintain these exhibits en masse as 

confidential. 

Deposition Exhibit 162: This is an email exchange between counsel for Plaintiff 

Roseburg and counsel representing plaintiffs in related legal actions. Defendant has offered to 

redact or file under seal language from one of the emails that should properly be maintained as 

confidential, specifically that language noted at ECF No. 93 at 5:16-20. However, it does not 

appear that there is good cause to maintain the other information in the email exchange as 

confidential. That other information does not involve substantive offers to settle and is not 

otherwise privileged. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause for a confidential designation only 

as to the language noted at ECF No. 93 at 5:16-20. 

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 108 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3 

 In conclusion, under the terms of the Protective Order in this case and Rule 26(c), IT IS 

ORDERED that Deposition Exhibits 4 and 43 be maintained as confidential and that Deposition 

Exhibit 162 be de-designated as confidential, except as to the language noted at ECF No. 93 at 

5:16-20. 

It is FURTHER ORDERED that the parties’ filings at ECF No. 93 be maintained under 

seal. 

Dated: December 20, 2024 

Case 2:23-cv-00649-TLN-SCR Document 108 Filed 12/23/24 Page 3 of 3