. , 

. . ..... , . ' !. .... .FABIAN1 COHEN & HALL, LLP . .- 

ATT01NCYS AT LAY 

..... . . 570 LEXINGTON AVENUE 

........ NEW YORU. NEW YDRU loorr :. .;.. ,: -. .... .,.. :.. .. f . ., , .,, . . ;,..::'l.. ..-..I- C 8.. .:.:............. ..... .. .. . . - . , (2121 640.4420 

...... F~X tale) eo7-e1sz :. 7.. 

... . .,. 

. . 

. ,: .\.. 

a,- ...--..,- U.-M.S.--,-r-.,..-l- LLL--* 

August18~2008 

s-.) Wv %u* A c/ 

2acrC: /nEv/rr, ar YLU~-/J+ rL;llrA;rXa%-- Via Facsimile - 212-805-4258 of c;~ -:,rrhd d&tdh*, e A /DCR'K 

wL &JC/n,i&J' Y~~tdh>~" 

Honorable Debra Freeman ri % a&-, JL+ C/ ' IS*. +W( y'a United States Magistrate Judge 

United States Courthouse 

500 Pear1 Street, Room 525 

New York, New York 10007 fiP& .du LC, m F. ! 

A, 

Re: Anderson, et a]. v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., et 

Inc.. n al. (06 CV 13371) and Related A~ti&m:~~~*: ! / 

Our File NO: 818.34464 - 

above matters. This letter is subktted in respoke to -&odyear's =-ounsel's August IS, 2008 

letter. For the reasons set forth below, as well as those set forth in Greyhound's July 22, 2008 

letter to Judge Leisure and those mentioned during the August 7, 2008 conference, third-party 

administrators and insurers should be permitted to receive confidential information.' 

Dear Judge Freeman: 

At the August 7,2008 conference the Court asked Ooodyear's counsel to submit case law 

addressing the third-party adrmnistratorlinsurer issue. Goodyear's counsel has failed to cite a 

single case that states that third-party administrators and insurers should not be allowed to 

receive confidential infonnation. On the other hand, Greyhound has cited three confidentiality 

order cases where an insurer has specifically been included as a party that can receive 

confidential information. The rationale is obvious and set forth in Greyhound's July 22, 2008 

letter. &e, Houdini. Inc. v. Goody Baskets, LLC, 2005 WL 6070180 (C.D.Ca1. 2005) [Court 

ordered that "documents designated as 'CONFIDENTIAL'. . .shall not be disclosed.. .to any 

DEBRA FREEMAN 

1 

J 

person or entity other than co&sel of record for a party.. .employees and agents of any insurer of :n 

any defendants"]; Iwaneiko v. Cohen & Griasby. P.C., 2005 WL 4043954 (W.D.Pa. 2005) I* 

[Court ordered that "Confidential information shall be disseminated only among attorneys, their r"3 

support staff, witnesses, parties, their insurers, and experts."]; The Beam Svstem. Inc. v. 

Checkpoint Systems, Inc., 1997 WL 364081 (C.D.Ca1. 1997) [Court so-ordered that confidential 

information could be disclosed to "a litigation specialist assigned by an insurer providing defense 

or coverage"]. So much for Goodyear's assertion that "there are no cases in this Circuit which 

This office represents Greyhound Lineg. Inc (.UmTFS connec pTE on w me -\ 

1 Greyhound does not accept Goodyear's unilateral reservation at footnotc 1 of its August 15,2008 Itttu. 

Contrary to Goodyear's assertion, "trade secret" information and "confidential" infonnation are not different 

Rather, trade secret infonnation is merely a type of confidential infonnation. This is made clear by the definition of 

confidential information - see paragraph 3(a) of Greyhound's proposed confidentiality order. 

Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 21 Filed 09/11/2008 Page 1 of 2
' Honorable Debra Freemaa 

United States District Court Judge 

August 18,2008 

Page 2 

recognize the legal right or necessity to disclose confidential documents to insurers or third-party 

administrators': 

As opposed to setting forth any substantive arguments, Goodyear instead wastes this 

Court's time by reciting the procedural history of the current form of Greyhound's proposed 

confidentiality order (see. pages 4, 5, and 7-8 of Mr. Kaplan's letter). 'hs procedural recitation 

is irrelevant to the substantive issue the Court must decide. Instead of addressing the issue at 

hand, Goodyear addresses aspects of Greyhound's proposed confidentiality order that are not 

(yet) before the Court (see. pages 8-9 of Mr. Kaplan's letter2). Goodyear also offers a bunch of 

form confidentiality orders which are nothing more than forms which are meant to be modified. 

Even the introductory comments to the "highly regarded" New York City Bar Association fonn 

states that "counsel are encouraged to agree to the Stipulation and Order or modifv it to 

accommodate the needs of each case". (Greyhound is at a loss why the "highly regarded" Bar 

Association form would or shouId trump case law that recognizes a third-party 

administrator's/insurer's right to receive confidential information.) 

Finally, Mr. Kaplan argues at page 11 of his letter, that Greyhound has failed to offer any 

reason why third-party administrators/insurers should be entitied to receive confidential 

information. As pointed out in Greyhound's July 22, 2008 letter, not permitting Oreyhound's 

third-party administrator, or "any insurer that may be liable to pay for or indemnify for any 

loss(es), verdict(s), judgment(s) or settlement(s)" in connection with this action, to have access to 

confidentid information wouId have a chilling effect on the typical and usual free flow of 

information between an insured defendant (such as Greyhound), defense counseI and the 

insurance canier. Under Goodyear's proposal neither Greyhound not its defense counsel could 

provide Greyhound's insurers with a clear and frank assessment of this litigation as it progresses 

and moves forward. Goodyear's limitations would put Greyhound at risk of the insurer 

threatening to disclaim coverage or actually disclaiming coverage due to Greyhound's lack of 

cooperation. The limitation Goodyear proposes could also force Greyhound into the position of 

claiming that its insurer is acting in bad faith. These scenarios are real and possible if insurers 

are not given access to confidential information. Goodyear's position on confidentiality would 

prejudice Greyhound and force Greyhound and its insurers into an untenable and advenarial 

relationship. It is therefore submitted that the Court should permit third-party 

administrators/insurers to receive confidential information. 

The Court's attention to the above is appreciated. 

kevin B. &ll& (KBP6098) 

KBPIlal 

cc: All counsel via E-Mail and Facsimile 

Goodyear's counsel still refuses to confer or meet with Greyhound's counsel regarding apparent objections that 

Goodyear has to Greyhound's proposed confidentiality order despite this Court's unequivocal directive that ''the 

parties are.. .to confer in good faith, and to raise additional issues with the Court only if they are unable to reach an 

agreement after their good faith conference". 

Case 1:07-cv-03289-PKL Document 21 Filed 09/11/2008 Page 2 of 2