Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Rossmore Properties, Inc. and CHI Enterprises, LLC sued Acrisure of California, LLC, doing business as Hoffman Brown Company, an insurance agency, in the Central District of California, Western Division (Case No. 2:26-cv-03311). The document supplied is only the protective order and its exhibit. It does not describe the underlying claims or defenses, so nothing here addresses the merits.
Counsel for both sides signed the stipulation on October 16, 2026. Their stated good cause was that discovery would likely involve employment records, commercially sensitive business practices, trade secrets, confidential financial information, and information implicating third-party privacy. The parties acknowledged that the order gives no blanket protection, reaches only information entitled to confidential treatment, and does not itself permit filing under seal, which requires a separate request under Civil Local Rule 79-5. They also stated that nothing should be designated confidential for tactical reasons.
The Court’s Holding
On October 19, 2026, Magistrate Judge Alka Sagar approved the stipulation, writing "FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS SO ORDERED." This is a discovery-management order adopting the parties' agreement. It makes no finding about any particular document, resolves no claim or defense, and does not rule on any sealing request. The order creates a single CONFIDENTIAL designation tied to Rule 26(c). Designating parties must limit designations to specific qualifying material, mass or routinized designations are prohibited, and clearly unjustified ones may expose the designating party to sanctions. Documents must be marked, deposition testimony designated on the record, and a timely corrected inadvertent failure to designate does not by itself waive protection.
Challenges may be made at any time consistent with the scheduling order, using the Local Rule 37 procedures, and the designating party bears the burden of persuasion. Challenged material keeps its protection until the court rules. Receiving parties may use protected material only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this action. They may disclose it only to listed recipients: outside counsel and staff, party personnel including house counsel where reasonably necessary, the court, court reporters, authors and custodians, deposition witnesses, agreed mediators, and experts, consultants and vendors. Experts, consultants and vendors must sign the Exhibit A acknowledgment, and deposition witnesses may not keep material unless they sign it. The order also sets notice procedures for subpoenas in other litigation, non-party material, and unauthorized disclosures.
On duration, the order says its terms do not extend beyond the commencement of trial. Designated material then becomes presumptively public unless compelling reasons supported by specific findings are presented to the trial judge, citing Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006). Trial use is left to the trial judge. The order separately says confidentiality obligations survive final disposition until the designating party agrees otherwise in writing or a court order directs otherwise. Within 60 days of a written request, receiving parties must return or destroy protected material and certify that they did so. Counsel may keep archival copies, which remain subject to the order. Violations may be punished by contempt or monetary sanctions, and any person may seek modification.
Key Takeaways
- The order is a stipulated discovery protective order entered for good cause shown. It decides no merits issue and authorizes no sealing.
- Designations must be specific and made in good faith, and the designating party carries the burden of persuasion if a designation is challenged.
- Experts, consultants and vendors must sign Exhibit A, but counsel, party personnel, the court, court reporters, authors and custodians, and mediators may receive confidential material without signing it.
- Sealing still requires leave of court under Civil Local Rule 79-5, and if sealing is denied the receiving party may file publicly unless the court instructs otherwise.
- The trial-expiration language and the post-disposition survival language are not fully reconciled, so parties should expect the trial judge to set the terms for confidentiality at trial.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished, routine order with no precedential weight. It adopts the parties' agreed terms and follows a common federal form. Its practical value is as a snapshot of how designation, challenge, third-party subpoena and return-or-destroy obligations will operate in this particular case.
Several matters remain open. No request to seal has been decided, and treatment of designated material at trial is reserved to the trial judge. Exhibit A refers to a protective order issued by the Hon. Richard A. Stone (Ret.), which does not match the magistrate judge who signed the order. That appears to be a leftover form reference that the parties may need to conform before anyone signs the acknowledgment. Rule 502(d) is mentioned only as allowing the parties to incorporate an agreement, and the order recites no specific non-waiver agreement.