Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00101/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00101-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

17cv101-AJB-MDD

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TODD GLANZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, a California 

Corporation, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 17cv101-AJB-MDD

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION FOR STATUS 

CONFERENCE OR IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, A 

PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR 

THE RETURN OF 

DEFENDANT’S DOCUMENTS

[ECF NO. 11]

Before the Court is Defendant Allstate Insurance Company’s Ex Parte 

Application for a Status Conference or in the alternative, a Protective Order 

for the Return of Defendant’s Documents, filed on April 24, 2017. (ECF No. 

11). On April 25, 2017, this Court entered a Minute Order directing Plaintiff 

to file a response and directing Defendant to file a reply. (ECF No. 12). On 

May 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed his opposition. (ECF No. 15). Defendant replied 

on May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 16). For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s 

motion is DENIED without prejudice.

Case 3:17-cv-00101-AJB-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

17cv101-AJB-MDD

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

This case arises from an employment dispute between Defendant 

Allstate and Plaintiff Todd Glanz, who was formerly employed by Defendant 

as a staff attorney. In that capacity, Plaintiff represented Defendant’s 

insureds in claims-related litigation. 

In its motion, Defendant claims that during Plaintiff’s tenure at 

Allstate, he accumulated “highly-confidential, client sensitive documents” 

and that he sent emails to his personal email address containing “numerous, 

confidential, privileged documents belonging to Allstate and/or its clients.” 

(ECF No. 11 at 2-3). Defendant requests that this Court order Plaintiff to 

return these documents immediately. Defendant requests that this Court 

enter the proposed protective order, attached as an exhibit to its motion, as a 

court order. The proposed protective order contains routine language to 

facilitate the exchange of confidential and privileged documents during 

discovery. It also includes a provision requiring Plaintiff to return the 

documents. Further, it includes language permitting the parties to move for 

an order pursuant to FED. R. EVID. 502(d).

In his opposition, Plaintiff urges the Court to delay ruling on the matter 

until he has obtained counsel and disagrees with Defendant’s 

characterization of the law and facts. Plaintiff argues that, as an attorney for 

the clients, he has an interest equal to Defendant’s interest in maintaining 

the confidentiality of the client documents that he accumulated with 

Defendant’s permission while working from home for Defendant. Plaintiff 

does not object to entry of a protective order that is more in line with the 

protective order example found in the Local Rules once he retains counsel, 

though Plaintiff asserts that the protective order is not necessary yet. 

Defendant notes that the parties and Judge Dembin agreed at the ENE 

and CMC that the parties could bring the issue of the return of documents

Case 3:17-cv-00101-AJB-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

17cv101-AJB-MDD

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

before this Court “as a joint motion for protective order.” (ECF No. 11 at 

2:19). After those discussions, however, Plaintiff’s counsel declined to review 

Defendant’s proposed joint protective order and motion because he was in the 

process of withdrawing. In accordance with Chambers Rule IV.D., Defendant 

filed this motion on an ex parte basis rather than jointly, because Plaintiff’s 

counsel was withdrawing and because Defendant views this issue as urgent. 

After Defendant filed this motion, District Judge Battaglia granted Plaintiff’s 

counsel’s motion to withdraw on May 5, 2017. (ECF No. 14). Plaintiff is 

currently proceeding pro se. 

Following the discussion at the Case Management Conference

immediately following the Early Neutral Evaluation, the Court expected the 

parties to reach agreement regarding return of the contested documents and 

a protective order regarding those and other confidential documents to be 

produced in the ordinary course of discovery. As noted above, the posture of 

the case has changed and agreement cannot be expected at this time. 

Although the Court can consider a contested motion for a protective order, it 

appears premature at this juncture. A contested motion for return of 

documents, however, is not a discovery motion and is more akin to a request

for an injunction. That motion must be presented to the district judge. 

Consequently, Defendant’s motion is DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 6, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00101-AJB-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

17cv101-AJB-MDD

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

Case 3:17-cv-00101-AJB-MDD Document 17 Filed 06/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4