Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02558/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02558-2/pdf.json

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

---

________________________________________________________________________ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

1

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DALE M. WALLIS, D.V.M., JAMES L. 

WALLIS, and HYGIEIA BIOLOGICAL 

LABORATORIES, INC., a California 

Corporation, 

 Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CENTENNIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 

INC., a New York corporation, ATLANTIC 

MUTUAL INSURANCE, CO., INC., a 

New York corporation, 

 Defendants. 

______________________________________

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

CASE NO. 2:08-CV-02558 WBS GGH 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST 

FOR ORDER TO SEAL 

DOCUMENTS FILED BY 

DEFENDANTS IN SUPPORT OF 

MOTION TO DISMISS; [PROPOSED

ORDER] 

[LOCAL RULE 39-141] 

I. INTRODUCTION AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

Pursuant to Local Rule 39-141, the plaintiffs, Dale M. Wallis, D.V.M., James L. Wallis 

and Hygieia Biological Laboratories, Inc., hereby seek emergency ex parte relief from the Court, 

asking that the Court issue an immediate order to seal documents No. 23, 24 and 25 in the docket 

JOANNA R. MENDOZA, State Bar No. 148320

LAW OFFICES OF JOANNA R. MENDOZA, P.C. 

P.O. Box 2593 

Granite Bay, CA 95746 

(916) 781-7600 

(916) 781-7601 FAX 

jmendoza@theiplawfirm.com 

JOEL C. BAIOCCHI, State Bar No. 107095 

LAW OFFICE OF JOEL C. BAIOCCHI 

P.O. Box 67 

Dutch Flat, CA 95714 

(530) 389-9175 

(530) 389-9176 

jcblaw2@colfaxnet.com 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterdefendants 

Dale M. Wallis, James L. Wallis and 

Hygieia Biological Laboratories 

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 03/25/09 Page 1 of 6
________________________________________________________________________ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

2

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 

and filed electronically on March 5, 2009, in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss and to 

compel arbitration. More particularly, the plaintiffs ask that the court order sealing of the 

following documents: 

1. [Doc. #25] Declaration of Gary Selvin and attached Exhibits A-E; 

2. [Doc. #24] Declaration of Merreles Schumann and attached Exhibits A-C; 

3. [Doc. #23] Memorandum in Support of Defendants ...Motion. 

II. THE HARMFUL MATERIAL CONTAINED IN THE DOCUMENTS 

In order to expedite the processing of this request and avoid the need of having to file this 

request under seal and in person, the plaintiffs will not reiterate or explain the details of the 

offending material contained in these filings. Rather, the Court can review the defendants’ 

papers themselves and see that the information contained therein involves sensitive 

communications between the plaintiffs (via their attorney of record in the underlying case) and 

the defendants (either directly or via their attorney of record) regarding matters of strategy and 

issues associated with the handling of the defense in the underlying cross-complaint currently 

being litigated in the case entitled Wallis v. PHL Associates, Inc. (more specifically identified in 

the complaint on file herein). Most of this information would be considered confidential 

business information under most circumstances, providing a competitive advantage to a 

competitor and, in this case, also an opposing party in the litigation which is the subject of the 

communications included in the filings. 

The information contained in the declarations and their exhibits would serve to benefit 

and provide inside information to some of the strategies of the defense to the opposing party in 

the Wallis v. PHL case. The opposing party in the Wallis v. PHL has demonstrated a strong 

ability to take information which is ordinarily of no relevance to a lawsuit and use it to cause 

delay and raise issues designed to distract from the substance of the underlying trade secrets 

case. It is rare that an opposing party is handed the full extent of moneys paid to defend a case 

like that demonstrated in Exhibit A to the Schumann declaration, and such information can 

surely be used to provide the opposing party with an advantage in the case – especially 

settlement discussions should they ever occur again. Exhibit B to the Schumann declaration 

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 03/25/09 Page 2 of 6
________________________________________________________________________ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

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 

even provides the work product and perspectives of the insureds’ attorney with respect to the 

underlying case that could also be used to the advantage of the opposing party in the underlying 

case. Communications by Mr. Selvin in his declaration lay out in detail information regarding 

work being performed by plaintiffs’ counsel in that case that the insurance company had issues 

with, itself an advantage to the opposing party if they can create such work for plaintiffs’ counsel 

which they are aware will not be covered by the insurance company and thereby leaving a 

weakness in plaintiffs’ defense in that case. 

The creativity of the opposing party in the Wallis v. PHL has caused significant work and 

distractions, and the insurance company has allowed those efforts to interfere significantly with 

the relationship with its own insureds. Disclosing confidential communications and sensitive, 

confidential business information, without any concern for the consequences thereof, is just a 

further example of the break down in the relationship between the insurer and the 

plaintiffs/insureds. This recent conduct could thereby have a direct and detrimental impact upon 

the continued ability of the plaintiffs to defend themselves in that matter. The material is 

extremely harmful to the plaintiffs/insureds, and the filing of these materials by the insurer 

without any consideration whatsoever to the harm that could come by way of making such 

sensitive materials publicly available is just one more example of how the insurer in this case 

continues to act in bad faith and in direct contradiction to the best interests of the insureds in the 

handling of this matter. Furthermore, all of this material was completely unnecessary to the legal 

argument in support of forcing arbitration, which required none of the facts submitted with the 

declarations in order to make the argument presented. The sole purpose for including these 

materials was simply to generate a reaction and embarrass the plaintiffs and their counsel. 

III.EXPEDITED FFORTS MADE TO MEET AND CONFER 

When the filing was first discovered by plaintiffs’ counsel at 1:30 pm on March 6, 2009, 

the opposing attorneys were immediately contacted by telephone. A voice message was left 

pointing out the offending materials and the need to file them under seal. This was followed by a 

email communication immediately thereafter. The attorneys were asked to respond and confirm 

that they would take immediate action to correct this harmful disclosure and seek to have the 

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 03/25/09 Page 3 of 6
________________________________________________________________________ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

4

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 

materials filed under seal. Opposing counsel was further advised that if they had not responded 

by 3:00 pm today indicating that such action would be undertaken, the plaintiffs would be forced 

to seek such relief themselves and would ask for all fees incurred for doing so. Even though the 

plaintiffs identified the documents to be sealed and explained that this disclosure was 

significantly harmful to the insureds, defense counsel refused to take action. Instead, defense 

counsel replied on the one hand that there was no reason to seal the documents plaintiffs were 

asking to be sealed and, on the other hand, asking again what documents the plaintiffs were 

requesting be sealed. In this regard, the Court is asked to issue an order to show cause, under 

Rule 11(c)(3), to defense counsel to show cause why this conduct, and in particular the failure 

and refusal to file these materials under seal for the protection of the insureds/plaintiffs, does 

not violate Rule 11(b). 

IV. SCOPE OF AND BASIS FOR THE REQUEST TO SEAL 

While the plaintiffs are asking at this time for the entirety of the currently filed 

Memorandum in Support of defendants’ motion [Doc. #23] be placed under seal, it is understood 

that the document may be redacted to remove all references to materials found within the 

declarations and exhibits thereto and re-filed by the defendants in a redacted form approved in 

advance by the plaintiffs. Therefore, the plaintiffs further request that the court either order the 

document sealed in total, or order the current document sealed and that the defendants file a 

redacted version of Doc. No. 23 to replace the current version and require that they seek approval 

by plaintiffs before submitting the redacted copy for filing. 

This type of sensitive business information, which more closely resembles attorney/client 

privileged information or work product but is certainly “confidential” information between the 

insured and the insurer with respect to the defense of the underlying case, is ordinarily already 

the subject of a Protective Order re: Confidential Information entered into between the parties 

and made an order of the Court. In fact, if defendants had cooperated with the plaintiffs several 

weeks ago to finalize such a stipulated protective order, this filing would have been prevented on 

that basis. Plaintiffs counsel submitted to the defense a proposed stipulated protective order 

based upon the Northern District’s standard form several weeks ago so that the parties could 

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 03/25/09 Page 4 of 6
________________________________________________________________________ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

5

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 

exchange Rule 26(a) disclosure documents. However, the defense has yet to respond to that 

other than to say it has “minor” changes to make without yet submitting those changes. 

The Rule 26(a) disclosure between the parties was due in early February, but the defense 

has yet to provide any disclosure to the plaintiffs (in spite of promises to have it submitted on 

more than one occasion since then). The plaintiff has submitted its Rule 26(a) disclosure, but has 

only been able to produce non-confidential documents while it waits for the defendants to 

provide the promised “minor” revisions to the Protective Order. It now appears that the 

defendants were deliberately delaying processing that Protective Order re: Confidential 

Documents since the plaintiffs would have clearly identified as “Confidential” those documents 

included with the declarations in Docket Nos. 24 and 25. Once the Protective Order is in place 

the defendants will hopefully be unable to pull this same type of stunt, which not only threatens 

the defense in the underlying case but is deliberately filed for the sole purpose of trying to 

embarrass the plaintiffs and their attorneys – there is no other valid reason for including these 

documents with the filing that was made. 

V. CONCLUSION 

This emergency ex parte request is sought to avoid significant and irreparable harm that 

could be caused by the public disclosure of the documents filed by the defendants, assuming it is 

not too late. The request asks the Court to act promptly to ensure plaintiffs’ defense in the 

underlying case is not harmed by the actions of the insurers. The sealing should remain until 

final judgment or settlement is reached in the underlying case of Wallis v. PHL, and no sooner. 

The undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States 

that the facts stated herein are true and correct, and that this statement was executed on the date 

stated below in Granite Bay, California. 

DATED: February 6, 2009 LAW OFFICES OF JOANNA R. MENDOZA, P.C. 

 ___/s/ Joanna R. Mendoza_____________ 

Joanna R. Mendoza 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs Dale M. Wallis, 

James L. Wallis, and Hygieia Biological 

Laboratories 

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 03/25/09 Page 5 of 6
________________________________________________________________________ 

EMERGENCY EX PARTE REQUEST FOR ORDER TO SEAL DOCUMENTS

6

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 

ORDER 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the following documents, electronically filed by the 

defendants on March 5, 2009, be placed under seal by the Clerk in accordance with the 

established procedures: 

 Docket No. 23: Memorandum in Support of Motion to Compel; 

 Docket No. 24: Declaration of Merreles Schuman and Exhibits thereto; 

 Docket No. 25: Declaration of Gary Selvin and Exhibits thereto. 

 

DATED: March 23, 2009 

 

Case 2:08-cv-02558-WBS-AC Document 35 Filed 03/25/09 Page 6 of 6