Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00296/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00296-0/pdf.json

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

---

D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 1 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

STEPHEN J. MEYER (BAR NO. 75326) 

JEFFREY S. GALVIN (BAR NO. 170223) 

DAVID A. LIVINGSTON (BAR NO. 215754) 

555 Capitol Mall, Tenth Floor 

Sacramento, CA 95814-4686 

Telephone: (916) 444-1000 

Facsimile: (916) 444-2100 

Attorneys for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

INSURANCE VENTURES, INC., and for 

Defendants CARL FRANK and STEPHANIE F. 

SMITH 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

VESTA FIRE INSURANCE 

CORPORATION, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INSURANCE VENTURES, INC.; PAUL 

McNEESE ROESSER; RONALD CLARK 

COLTON; STEPHANIE FRANCIS 

SMITH; CARL FRANK; LAW OFFICES 

OF COLTON & ROESSER; DOES 1 

THROUGH 20, 

Defendants. 

Case No. CIV S-04-296 FCD PAN 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

Due to the sensitive nature of certain information being sought in this action, the parties 

wish to place limits on the disclosure of information outside of this lawsuit. The parties thus 

hereby submit this Stipulated Protective Order. 

The parties recognize that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court 

order to the contrary, presumptively public. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. District Court, 

187 F.3d 1096, 1102 (9th Cir. 1999); Citizens First Nat’l Bank v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 178 F.3d 

943, 944-95 (7th Cir. 1999) (“[T]he public at large pays for the courts and therefore has an 

interest in what goes on at all stages of a judicial proceeding”). 

The public interest, however, does not always trump litigants’ property and privacy 

interests, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”), rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 1 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 2 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

override the presumption of public access to discovery materials where good cause is shown. See 

San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1103. FRCP 26(c) states, in relevant part, that: “Upon 

motion by a party or by a person from whom discovery is sought . . . and for good cause shown, 

the court in which the action is pending . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect 

a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense.” A 

court may order “that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial 

information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way.” FRCP 26(c)(7). For good 

cause to exist, the party seeking protection bears the burden of showing that prejudice or harm 

will result if no protective order is granted. Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 

1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002). 

The parties to this action anticipate that the discovery phase of this matter may involve the 

disclosure of material protected under the constitutional, statutory, or common law right to 

privacy or protected as confidential business, financial, proprietary, or trade secret information. 

Specifically, this action arises between participants in a competitive industry. Discovery 

in this case will include production of confidential financial information, which -- if shared with 

opposing and competing parties, as well as the public -- specifically could harm the disclosing 

party’s business because it would result in the loss of the proprietary status of certain business 

assets and information. This case also may involve the production of personal financial 

information, of the parties or of third parties, which may burden their privacy interests. 

Furthermore, the parties recognize that the disclosure of certain discoverable information 

may be harmful to a party’s business if disclosure is made either to the public or to the other 

parties in this action, but that the disclosure of certain information must be made in order for the 

respective parties to prosecute and/or defend their respective cases. Given this dichotomy, the 

parties desire to adopt a two-tier protective order to address confidentiality concerns. 

Accordingly, under the two-tier system, one tier of confidentiality will permit the disclosure of 

confidential information to the parties but not the public, as disclosure of such information would 

be harmful only if made to the public. The other tier will be reserved for “attorney’s eyes only,” 

because disclosure of such information would be harmful whether made to the public or other 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 2 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 3 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

parties in this action. 

Without waiving any objections to the discoverability of any such information, the parties 

intend to provide a mechanism by which discovery of relevant information, otherwise not 

objectionable, may be obtained in a manner which protects all parties, including nonparties and 

third parties to this litigation, from the risk of disclosure of such confidential information. 

WHEREFORE, the parties, by and through their respective counsel, hereby stipulate to 

and seek the Court’s approval of, the following protective order: 

1. Any party acting in good faith to preserve information sought in discovery may 

designate such information or documents containing such information as “Confidential” (herein 

referred to as “Confidential Information”). A party may only designate information as 

confidential if, in good faith, that party concludes that specific identifiable harm will result from 

disclosure of information to the public, and that the balance of the public’s interest in having 

access to the document versus the private interest in maintaining its secrecy weighs in favor of 

non-disclosure. In making such a determination, the disclosing party shall consider the following 

factors, which are neither mandatory nor exhaustive: (1) whether disclosure will violate any 

privacy interests, (2) whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an 

improper purpose, (3) whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment, (4) 

whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health and safety, (5) 

whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and efficiency, (6) 

whether a party benefiting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or official, and (7) 

whether the case involves issues important to the public. See Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 

56 F.3d 476, 463 (3d Cir. 1995). This protective order does not, however, protect documents that 

are part of the public record. 

2. Any party or non-party wishing to come within the provisions of this Order may 

designate as “Confidential” the documents or portions thereof which it considers confidential at 

the time the documents are produced. Each page of the document so designated must be marked 

“Confidential” by the producing party. “Confidential” documents or things which cannot be 

reasonably labeled pursuant to this Paragraph shall be so designated by the producing party by 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 3 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 4 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

informing the receiving party in writing. It is the intent of the parties that each document 

previously transmitted and designated as “Confidential” is to be covered by this Stipulated 

Protective Order. Further, the parties may designate documents produced by non-parties as 

“Confidential” by providing specific written designation to all parties and the non-party within 

ten (10) days of the date that the non-party produces the documents. Within that ten-day period 

the documents provisionally shall be treated as “Confidential,” unless the parties otherwise agree 

in writing. With respect to documents already produced by third parties, they also may be 

designated as “Confidential” by any party, in which case the designation shall only apply 

prospectively, i.e., from the time of notice of designation. 

3. Subject to further order of the Court, any documents or discovery responses 

labeled as “Confidential” as well as any copies or excerpts thereof, or analyses or reports which 

pertain thereto, and any deposition testimony or portion thereof marked as “Confidential,” may be 

used in connection with all phases of this proceeding (including but not limited to written 

discovery, depositions, discovery disputes, and dispositive motions filed in connection with this 

case, as well as the trial of this case on the merits), and in connection with all phases of related 

state court proceedings, entitled Insurance Ventures, Inc. v. Vesta Fire Insurance Corp., 

Sacramento Superior Court case number 04AS00268, and Vesta Fire Insurance Corp. v. Equity 

Insurance Managers, Inc., Orange County Superior Court case number 05CC02893, but not for 

any other purpose. Nothing contained within this Paragraph shall be deemed to limit the right of 

the parties to use confidential information for any impeachment purpose. Documents marked as 

“Confidential,” and their contents, may be shown, given, made available or disclosed, wholly or 

in part, only to the following: 

a. Attorneys of record in this action and counsel for the receiving party and 

employees of such attorneys, including copy services, on a need to know basis; 

b. The parties to this action, including, in the case of corporate parties, their officers, 

directors, agents, representatives, and other employees; 

c. Expert witnesses and their staff who are not directly associated with a party; 

d. Court reporters and their staff who are required to transcribe testimony; 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 4 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 5 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

e The insurers and reinsurers of the parties, and their counsel; 

f. The California Department of Insurance and/or any other governmental agency in 

response to a written request, signed by an agency official, so long as the procedures set forth in 

Paragraph 6 below are followed; and 

g. Any other person, provided that all parties consent in writing prior to the 

disclosure of information to that specific person. 

4. Confidential Information further may be designated “Restricted Confidential 

Information: For Counsel Only” by marking each document containing such information with the 

legend “Restricted Confidential Information: For Counsel Only,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or 

“Restricted Confidential” (hereinafter referred to as “Restricted Information”) in the same manner 

and within the same time limitations as the marking of such information as “Confidential” set 

forth in Paragraph 2 hereof. A party wishing to designate a document “Restricted Confidential” 

shall employ the same theory and consider the same factors as described in Paragraph 1, above, 

and must also conclude in good faith, that the disclosure of such “Restricted Confidential” 

information to the adverse party would severely prejudice and/or injure the producing party’s 

business. All documents or things designated as “Restricted Information” are included within the 

meaning of “Confidential Information” and all provisions of this Order applying to Confidential 

Information shall apply to Restricted Information, but Restricted Information may be disclosed 

only to the persons identified in subparagraphs 3(a), 3(c), and 3(d), above. 

5. In the instance of deposition testimony, any party and any third party witness may 

provisionally designate the testimony as “Confidential” or “Restricted Confidential” by so stating 

on the record at the deposition. If such a designation is made at the deposition, then any party or 

the third party witness subsequently may designate the specific page or pages of the deposition 

transcript to which the designation(s) will apply. Such designation(s) shall be supplied in writing 

to the court reporter and to all parties and the third party witness within 30 days after the 

transcript becomes available. In the absence of timely written confidentiality designations, the 

transcript shall lose its provisional “Confidential” or “Restricted Confidential” designation, and 

the testimony will be treated as public information. 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 5 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 6 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

6. If the California Department of Insurance or another governmental agency 

requests that a non-designating party provide Confidential Information or Restricted Information, 

then a copy of that agency’s request shall be transmitted to the designating party by facsimile at 

least ten (10) days before the intended disclosure. 

7. Each person permitted by the parties or their counsel to have access to designated 

information under the terms of this Order (other than the persons identified in Paragraphs 3(a) and 

3(b)) shall, prior to being given such access, be provided with a copy of this Order for review. 

Upon receiving this Order, each such person shall sign a statement in the form of Exhibit A 

hereto indicating that he or she has read the Order and agrees to comply with its terms. Counsel 

who requests that a recipient sign Exhibit A shall retain a signed copy of Exhibit A. Signed 

copies of Exhibit A shall be produced, upon request, at the deposition of any individual identified 

in Paragraph 3(c). 

8. The parties acknowledge the burden placed on the Court when papers are filed 

under seal. No papers designated as Confidential Information or Restricted Information in 

accordance with Paragraphs 2 or 4, above, shall be filed under seal except pursuant to further 

order of the Court pursuant to Eastern District Local Rule 39-141. The non-filing parties will not 

oppose any application or motion to file papers under seal and will cooperate in expediting the 

resolution of the issue, including, if appropriate, by entering into a stipulation. 

9. Any party may dispute a confidentiality designation by providing specific written 

notice to the designating party. If the parties are unable to resolve the issue, the designating 

party, within 30 days of receipt of the notice, must file a motion with the Court to establish that 

the material or information at issue merits the specified level of confidentiality. The putatively 

Confidential Information or Restricted Information may be lodged under seal with such a motion. 

If such a motion is made or resisted without substantial justification, the prevailing party will be 

entitled to reasonable fees and costs incurred as a result. 

10. This Stipulation and Order may be modified only if such modification is in 

writing, signed by the parties, and approved by an Order of the Court. 

11. Upon termination of this proceeding, unless the attorneys of record otherwise 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 6 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 7 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

agree in writing, each party shall: (a) assemble and return all designated materials, including 

copies, to the person(s) and entity(ies) from whom the material was obtained, or (b) destroy all 

designated materials and provide the other party with written certification that such destruction 

was made. Each attorney of record may retain one copy of any designated materials and retain all 

copies of designated materials containing attorney work product provided that such documents 

will retain their confidentiality designation indefinitely while being held by the attorney. 

12. This Stipulation and Order is entered solely for the purpose of facilitating the 

exchange of documents and information between the parties to this action without involving the 

Court unnecessarily in the process. Nothing in this Stipulation and Order, nor the production of 

any information or document under the terms of this Order, nor any proceedings pursuant to this 

Order, shall be deemed to have the effect of an admission or waiver by either party, or of altering 

the confidentiality or non-confidentiality of any such document or information, or altering any 

existing obligation of any party or the absence thereof. Nothing in this Order shall be deemed to 

impact in any way a party’s right to object to any discovery request on any ground, including 

attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, or any other protection provided by law. This 

Order shall not preclude any party from seeking another form of protective order. 

13. Any party may seek reconsideration or modification of this Order at any time for 

good cause. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to modify or enforce this Order even after the 

final resolution of this action. 

DATED: June 14, 2005 Respectfully submitted, 

DOWNEY BRAND LLP 

“/s/ Jeffrey S. Galvin” 

By: 

JEFFREY S. GALVIN 

Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

INSURANCE VENTURES, INC., and for Defendants 

CARL FRANK and STEPHANIE F. SMITH 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 7 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 8 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

DATED: June 14, 2005 HINSHAW & CULBERTSON 

“/s/ Joseph J. DeHope, Jr. (original signature retained by 

attorney Jeffrey S. Galvin)” 

By: 

JOSEPH J. DEHOPE, JR. 

Attorney for Defendant 

INSURANCE VENTURES, INC. 

DATED: June 9, 2005 COLTON & ROESSER 

“/s/ Roland C. Colton (original signature retained by 

attorney Jeffrey S. Galvin)” 

By: 

ROLAND C. COLTON 

Attorney for Defendant and Counterclaimant 

INSURANCE VENTURES, INC., and for Defendants 

ROLAND C. COLTON, PAUL M. ROESSER, and 

LAW OFFICES OF COLTON & ROESSER 

DATED: June 7, 2005 BARGER & WOLEN LLP 

“/s/ John S. Pierce (original signature retained by attorney 

Jeffrey S. Galvin)” 

By: 

JOHN S. PIERCE 

Attorney for VESTA FIRE INSURANCE CORP., 

CALIFORNIA SELECT INSURANCE AGENCY, 

INC., and JAMES R. WATJE 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 15, 2005. /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

HON. PETER A. NOWINSKI 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 8 of 9
D

O

W

N

E

Y

B

R

A

N

D

L

L

P

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 

658224.6 9 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE ORDER 

CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT FOR OTHERS

1. I have been asked by ______________________________________ or its counsel 

to receive and review certain materials or testimony that have been designated as 

CONFIDENTIAL within the terms of the Protective Order entered in the action entitled Vesta 

Fire Insurance Corp. v. Insurance Ventures, Inc., United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California, Case No. CIV S-04-296 FCD PAN. 

2. I have read the aforementioned Protective Order and I agree to be bound by it. I 

understand that I am prohibited from disclosing “Confidential” materials and testimony, and the 

contents thereof, to anyone except as allowed by the Protective Order. 

3. I hereby agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for 

the Eastern District of California for enforcement of this undertaking. 

4. I declare the foregoing is true under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 

United States. 

DATED:_____________________________ ______________________________________ 

NAME: _______________________________ 

Case 2:04-cv-00296-GEB-EFB Document 170 Filed 06/16/05 Page 9 of 9