Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00405/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00405-1/pdf.json

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATROCINA A. RAMSEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE 

INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cv-00405-DAD-SAB

ORDER RE INFORMAL DISCOVERY 

DISPUTE

(ECF No. 17)

On February 26, 2020, the parties filed a joint informal discovery dispute letter brief. 

(ECF No. 17.) An informal teleconference was held on February 27, 2020 to address the dispute. 

Counsel James Wilkins appeared for Plaintiff and counsel Royal Oakes and Michael Newman 

appeared for Defendant. The dispute involves the language to be used in the parties stipulated 

protective order regarding the procedure to be followed should a party seek to file a document 

under seal.

Rule 141 of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California governs the sealing of 

documents. Plaintiff’s concern is that the rule provides that, unless ordered otherwise, if a 

request to seal is denied in full or in part, the Clerk will return to the submitting party the 

documents for which sealing has been denied. L.R. 141(e)(1). Plaintiff contends that under the 

language proposed by Defendant, a motion could be decided without the documents being 

Case 1:19-cv-00405-LHR-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 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

considered if a request to seal is denied.

Defendant proposes the following language for the protective order.

Filing Protected Material. A Party that seeks to file under seal any Protected 

Material must comply with the applicable Local Rule. Protected Material may 

only be filed under seal pursuant to a court order authorizing the sealing of the 

specific Protected Material at issue. If a Party’s request to file Protected Material 

under seal is denied by the court, then the Receiving Party may file the 

information in the public record unless otherwise instructed by the court.

(ECF No. 17 at 2.) This language is consistent with what the Court has found to be the general 

practice in this district. Further, this encourages the parties to cooperate in preparing a request to 

seal and does not impose any undue burden on the party seeking to submit documents in support 

of their moving papers.

Plaintiff proposes the following procedure to be used should a party seek to file a 

document under seal in support of a motion or opposition. 

Farmers will designate any documents it deems to be “confidential” under the 

terms of this stipulated protective order. Any time after production of the 

documents identified by Farmers as “confidential,” Plaintiff’s counsel may 

identify the documents, specifically by bates number, that counsel intends to use 

in support of, or in opposition to, any anticipated motion that may need to be 

sealed. Upon receipt of the specifically identified documents by bates numbers, 

Farmers will be responsible for filing a request for sealing in accordance with

Eastern District of California Local Rule 141 regarding the specifically identified 

documents by Plaintiffs counsel. Should the Court grant the request to seal the 

documents, Plaintiffs counsel will file any documents under seal as consistent 

with the Court’s Order. Should the Court deny Farmers’ request to request seal 

documents, Plaintiff’s counsel may file the documents in connection with any

motion or opposition. If Farmers fails to timely seek and obtain an order allowing 

for the sealing of said documents, Plaintiff may file a documents without them 

being sealed.

(ECF No. 17 at 2.) 

Plaintiff seeks to have the request to seal adjudicated prior to the filing of the motion or 

opposition and should it not be timely obtained the documents could be filed in the public record. 

However, this is not reasonable given the state of emergency that has been declared in this 

district. (See Standing Order is Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 

California, ECF No. 12.) If a motion is filed pursuant to the Local Rule, an opposition is due 

two weeks later. As set forth in Plaintiff’s procedures, Defendant would be required to file and 

have adjudicated the motion to seal prior to the objection being due. Given the circumstances 

Case 1:19-cv-00405-LHR-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 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

that exist in this district it is highly unlikely that any motion to seal would be adjudicated prior to 

the filing of an opposition. Plaintiff could then, under the procedures proposed, file the 

documents in the record impairing the defendant’s ability to protect proprietary or confidential 

documents. 

Plaintiff expresses concern that should a motion to seal be denied the court would decide 

the motion without considering the documents. However, the Court notes that any party who is 

seeking to protect their documents has an incentive to participate in preparing the request to seal 

by articulating to the opposing party the reasons that the documents should be sealed if requested 

to do so. If they do not participate then that party runs the risk that their documents become part 

of public record. The procedure set forth by Defendants provides that the documents can be filed 

in the record should the court deny any motion to seal. Although the Local Rule provides that 

the documents will be returned to the party, the request to seal can request that if denied the 

documents be filed in the record or that the party be granted leave to supplement the record with 

the documents. 

The Court finds that the procedures proposed by Defendant are consistent with general 

practice in this district, are sufficient to protect the confidentiality of the documents, and allow 

the opposing party to submit the documents in support of their moving papers. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 27, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00405-LHR-SAB Document 19 Filed 02/28/20 Page 3 of 3