Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-01312-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

CYNTHIA MENDEZ,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNUM PROVIDENT CORPORATION and

PROVIDENT LIFE & ACCIDENT

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant. /

No. C04-01312 JW (HRL)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER

[Re: Docket No. 179]

On January 17, 2006, this court heard the motion for protective order filed by plaintiff

Cynthia Mendez. Defendants opposed the motion. Plaintiff did not file a reply. Upon

consideration of the papers filed by the parties, as well as the arguments of counsel, the court

grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part.

In this action, plaintiff alleges bad faith breach of an insurance contract. She has

designated Stephen Prater as an expert to testify at trial on claims handling procedures. On July

8, 2005, this court issued an “Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Defendants’ Motion to

Compel Stephen Prater’s Production of Documents” (“July 8, 2005 Order”). In that order,

Prater was directed to, among other things, conduct a reasonable review of his available records

and serve a declaration providing (for each year of the past five years) his reasoned estimate of

the percentage of his time spent and gross income generated from providing consulting or

*E-FILED ON 1/23/06*

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 192 Filed 01/23/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

expert witness services for alleged insureds, insurance companies and plaintiff’s counsel, the

Friedman, Rubin & White (“FRW”) law firm. (July 8, 2005 Order, ¶ 9). That Order also

provided that the financial information “shall not be used or disseminated for any purpose not

directly related to the prosecution or defense of this action.” (Id.)

Pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), plaintiff moves for a protective order as to Prater’s

court-ordered financial disclosures. At the hearing, plaintiff’s counsel stated that the instant

motion presents, in essence, a dispute over whether defendants should be required to file

Prater’s financial disclosures under seal – i.e., to prevent the information from being

disseminated to the public at large. However, her proposed order expressly excludes the

potential use of information at trial.

Upon a showing of “good cause,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) authorizes courts to “protect a

party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense” in

discovery. See FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c). The party seeking a protective order has the burden of

showing that the protection is warranted.

As a threshold matter, the court is unpersuaded by defendants’ arguments that plaintiff’s

motion should be denied because (1) plaintiff does not have standing to seek protection for

information disclosed by Prater; and (2) Prater did not seek a protective order before he

produced the information. The instant motion will be deemed a motion brought on Prater’s

behalf. Moreover, the court is disinclined to rule here that plaintiff is precluded from seeking

other or further protection than that provided in the July 8, 2005 Order if she believes that such

protection is warranted.

Even so, the fact that plaintiff is only moving now for a protective order casts doubt on

her assertion that protection is critical, and she has made a slim showing of any need for sealing

such information. Discovery has closed, and this matter is currently set for a preliminary

pretrial conference before the District Court on February 13, 2006. Moreover, so far as this

court is aware, Prater’s financial declarations have been publicly filed only in redacted form. 

Further, defendants have pointed out that Prater has, in other lawsuits, already publicly

disclosed that his consulting income was approximately $400,000/year in 1999 and

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 192 Filed 01/23/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

$500,000/year in 2001. Plaintiff has failed to provide any explanation as to why information

about how that income breaks down (e.g., as between alleged insureds, insurance companies

and plaintiff’s counsel, the FRW law firm) should be sealed.

Nevertheless, recognizing that personal salary information is protected by privacy

interests, the court will GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN PART plaintiff’s motion as follows:

1. To the extent defendants include in any future pretrial filing the dollar amounts

of Prater’s financial disclosures, those dollar amounts shall be filed under seal (with

appropriately redacted documents to be publicly filed). However, none of Prater’s financial

disclosures for the year 2001 shall be subject to sealing. As discussed above, Prater has already

publicly disclosed his income for 2001, and plaintiff has not demonstrated that sealing is

warranted.

2. In any event, the disclosed time and income percentages for any year shall not be

subject to sealing.

3. This order notwithstanding, the potential use of such information at trial shall be

left to the sound discretion of the District Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:

 

HOWARD R. LLOYD

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

January 23, 2006 /s/ Howard R. Lloyd

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 192 Filed 01/23/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

5:04-cv-1312 Notice will be electronically mailed to: 

Robert Herbert Bohn Snr. bbohn@bohnlaw.com, jodie@bohnlaw.com; info@bohnlaw.com 

John T. Burnite jtb@kelher.com 

John C. Ferry jferry@kelher.com 

Kenneth R. Friedman kfriedman@frwlaw.us 

Richard Henry Friedman rfriedman@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Michael G. Glanzberg mgg@kelher.com 

Thomas M. Herlihy herlihy@kelher.com 

Barbara L. Lyons blyons@cpsmlaw.com 

Jeffrey K. Rubin jrubin@frwlaw.us, jcrook@frwlaw.us 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel who have not

registered for e-filing under the court’s CM/ECF program.

Case 5:04-cv-01312-JW Document 192 Filed 01/23/06 Page 4 of 4