Opinion
Case No. CV11-01764 DSE (AGR)
08-23-2011
MONARCH CONSULTING, INC. dba PES PAYROLL, Plaintiff, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC, Defendants. SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC, Counter-claimant, v. MONARCH CONSULTING, INC. dba PES PAYROLL, Counter-defendant.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP JUSTINE M. CASEY, Cal. Bar No. 143243 JAMES F. McSHANE, Cal. Bar No. 123178 DAVID E. DWORSKY, Cal. Bar No, 272167 SMITH ELLISON, Professional Corporation MICHAEL W. ELLISON Attorneys for Defendant SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
JUSTINE M. CASEY, Cal. Bar No. 143243
JAMES F. McSHANE, Cal. Bar No. 123178
DAVID E. DWORSKY, Cal. Bar No, 272167
SMITH ELLISON, Professional Corporation
MICHAEL W. ELLISON
Attorneys for Defendant
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC
[PROPOSED] ORDER GRANTING
LEAVE TO FILE, AND ENTERING,
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER
[Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order, and Declarations of Fredrick J. Weber and James F. McShane filed concurrently]
ORDER
The Court, having read and considered the concurrently filed Proposed Stipulated Protective Order regarding the protection of medical privacy of nonparties and competitively sensitive business information, and good cause appearing therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Stipulated Protective Order is entered in this action.
HON. DALE S. FISCHER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
JUSTINE M. CASEY, Cal. Bar No. 143243
JAMES F. McSHANE, Cal. Bar No. 123178
DAVID E. DWORSKY, Cal. Bar No, 272167
SMITH ELLISON, Professional Corporation
MICHAEL W. ELLISON
Attorneys for Defendant
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MONARCH CONSULTING, INC. dba
PES PAYROLL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants.
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC, Counter-claimant,
v.
MONARCH CONSULTING, INC. dba
PES PAYROLL,
Counter-defendant.
Case No. CV11-01764 DSE (AGR)
STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF PROTECTIVE ORDER
[Proposed Order Granting Leave to File Stipulated Protective Order and Declarations of Fredrick J. Weber and James F. McShane filed concurrently]
Plaintiff and counter-defendant Monarch Consulting, Inc. dba PES Payroll ("Monarch"), and defendant and counter-claimant Specialty Risk Services, LLC ("SRS"), through their counsel of record, and under Rules 26(c) and 29(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 7-1, agree and stipulate as follows:
I.
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO ENTER THIS PROTECTIVE ORDER
A. Brief Summary of Facts
Beginning on October 21, 2005, Monarch retained SRS to administer the claims for benefits submitted by injured employees under Monarch's workers' compensation insurance program) SRS handled, and continues to handle, claims for benefits submitted under Monarch's workers' compensation insurance program for policy years, beginning each year on October 21, from 2005 through 2009.
In its Complaint, Monarch asserts five claims for relief: (1) breach of written and oral contracts, (2) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) declaratory relief, (4) unfair business practices and (5) accounting. Monarch alleges that SRS breached agreements by, among other things, mishandling the workers' compensation insurance claims it administered, resulting in claim overpayments, over-reserving, and increases in the collateral requirements imposed by Monarch's insurer. Monarch seeks general, special and punitive damages.
In its Counter-Claim, SRS alleges that Monarch failed to pay SRS invoices for service fees and claim losses. SRS seeks over $100,000 in damages.
During preliminary communications between counsel about anticipated discovery, Monarch indicated that it will seek, among other things, workers' compensation claim files and related documents and information pertaining to about forty-seven claims that SRS handled. (McShane Decl., ¶¶ 2-3). SRS must object to the disclosure or production of the claim files without a protective order because, in its view, the information they contain is protected by third-party medical privacy rights. Through its counsel, Monarch indicated that it will also request information and documents relating to SRS' workers' compensation claims handling manuals and related materials. (Id.). SRS contends that its claim handling manuals and related documents are proprietary and confidential, and it will object to producing them without a protective order.
In order to avoid unnecessary disputes, the parties agree that (a) the claim files shall be produced under a protective order due to SRS' contention that the requested claim files contain private medical information pertaining to Monarch's injured workers, (b) SRS' workers' compensation claims handling manuals and related materials shall be produced under a protective order due to SRS' contention that they contain confidential and proprietary information that should be protected from disclosure outside this litigation, and (c) each side may locate and identify other documents and information that should be produced only under a protective order.
THEREFORE, in order to facilitate the future production of claim files that contain private medical information, workers' compensation claim handling manuals or other internal documents that any party deems confidential, proprietary or trade secrets, the parties submit this proposed Protective Order. B. Good Cause Exists for the Issuance of a Protective Order to Protect Private Medical Information
1. Injured Employees Have a Fundamental Privacy Interest in the Information Contained in their Workers' Compensation Claim Files.
In its Complaint, Monarch alleges, among other things, that SRS mishandled a number of workers' compensation claims filed by Monarch's injured employees. SRS contends that the claim files and related documents contain confidential medical, employment and other personal information, and that the following authorities support its contentions:
Although the parties agree with the general proposition that California law protects privacy interests in medical, employment and personal information, they do not agree on the nature and extent of that protection, including its application to the contents of workers' compensation claim files. However, they desire to minimize their points of disagreement by entering into this stipulation.
The California Constitution protects an individual's right to privacy. Cal. Const. Art. I, § 1 (among an individual's inalienable rights are "pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."); Urbaniak v. Newton, 226 Cal.App.3d . 1128, 1136 (1991). Even highly relevant, non-privileged information may be shielded from discovery if its disclosure would impair a person's "inalienable right of privacy." Britt v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 844, 855-56 (1978). The constitutional right to privacy includes protection from the unauthorized dissemination of a person's medical information. Pettus v. Cole, 49 Cal.App.4th 402, 440 (1996); Urbaniak, supra, 226 Cal.App.3d at 1139 (recognizing that confidentiality of medical information encourages free communication with medical providers and protects the doctor/patient relationships from abuse).
State law governs this privacy claim. "In a federal action based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, state law governs privilege claims." Oakes v. Halyorsen Marine Ltd., 179 F.R.D. 281, 284 (CD. Cal. 1998). Additionally, "to the extent privacy is a matter of privilege under state law, federal courts will honor the privilege and protect the responding party from discovery." Id.
SRS further contends that California courts assiduously protect privacy rights, abrogating them only after "a balancing of the privacy interest against competing interests to determine if the right may be invaded." Jeffery H. v. Imai, Tadlock & Keeney, 85 Cal.App.4th 345, 357 (2000); Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assoc., 7 Cal. 4th 1,20, 37 (1994) (the "diverse and somewhat amorphous character of the privacy right necessarily requires that privacy interests be specifically identified and carefully compared with competing or countervailing privacy and nonprivacy interests in a 'balancing test.'"). Thus, in discovery proceedings, a court must balance the competing interests, and may order disclosure of confidential information only when the court finds a "compelling public interest"requiring disclosure. Britt, supra, 20 Cal.3d at 855-56. Even then, the disclosure of confidential information must be narrowly circumscribed. Id.
2. California Labor Code Section 3762 Governs the Disclosure of Information Maintained in Claim Files.
The right of privacy set forth in the California Constitution applies to confidential medical information. For that reason, the Legislature codified rules governing disclosure of confidential medical information in various circumstances. For example, Labor Code section 3762 governs the release to employers of medical information contained in an insurer's or third party administrator's ("TPA's") workers' compensation claim files, and prohibits the disclosure of an injured worker's confidential medical information to the employer, except for (a) medical information limited to the diagnosis and treatment for the condition that is the subject of the employee's claim, and (b) medical information that the employer needs in order to modify the injured employee's work duties:
(c) An insurer, third-party administrator retained by a self-insured employer pursuant to Section 3702.1 to administer the employer's workers' compensation claims, and those employees and agents specified by a self-insured employer to administer the employer's workers' compensation claims, are prohibited from disclosing or causing to be disclosed to an employer, any medical information, as defined in subdivision (b) or Section 56.05 of the Civil Code, about an employee who has filed a workers' compensation claim, except as follows:
(1) Medical information limited to the diagnosis of the mental or physical condition for which workers' compensation is claimed and the treatment provided for this condition.
(2) Medical information regarding the injury for which workers' compensation is claimed that is necessary for the employer to have in order for the employer to modify the employee's work duties. [Cal. Labor Code § 3762 (emphasis added)].
Under Civil Code section 56.05(g), "medical information" is "any individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider of health care, health care service plan, pharmaceutical company, or contractor regarding a patient's medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment."
The Legislature enacted the original Labor Code section 3762 in 1993, as part of an "Employer's Bill of Rights." In its original form, in contrast to the current version of the statute, section 3762 required insurers and TPAs to disclose workers' compensation claim files, in their entirety, to employers upon request, excluding only privileged material.
As originally enacted, Labor Code section 3762 did not contain subsection (c), which limits the information that may be released.
In 1999, largely in response to concerns over disclosure of employee HIV status to employers, Assembly Bill 435 proposed to amend Labor Code section 3762 to include restrictions on the medical information that insurers could disclose to employers. Workers Compensation: Medical Records: Disclosure: Hearing on AB 435 Before the Assembly Comm. on the Judiciary, 1999-2000 Sess. 2 (Cal. 1999). Proponents of AB 435 argued that the amendment was necessary because the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"), which restricts health care providers from disclosing medical information to employers, did not restrict insurers and TPAs from disclosing the same confidential medical information to employers on request. In order to re-establish statutory protection of employee confidential medical information in the hands of insurers and TPAs, AB 435 added ' subsection (c) to Labor Code section 3762, prohibiting insurers and TPAs from disclosing medical information to employers except: (1) the diagnosis of the claimed injury, (2) the treatment for the claimed injury, and (3) information necessary to modify the employee's work duties.
Under the CMIA, subject to certain exceptions, a health care provider may not disclose an individual's medical information without first obtaining a written authorization from the patient. See Cal. Civ. Code § 56.10(a).
The parties agree that California law requires Courts to protect injured workers' privacy interests in the medical, employment and personal information contained in workers' compensation claim files. These privacy interests overcome . the right of public access to such medical, employment and personal information, and support the issuance of an order requiring the sealing of any workers' compensation claim file that any party files in connection with the trial of, or any motion to be filed in, this action. If workers' compensation claim files are not filed under seal, there exists a substantial probability that the privacy interests of Monarch's injured employees will be prejudiced, and no means less restrictive than sealing will be sufficient to protect those interests.
Accordingly, in order to protect the privacy rights of Monarch's injured employees in any confidential medical, employment or other personal information contained in their workers' compensation claim files and related records maintained by SRS and Monarch, the parties agree that all such files and documents, if produced, shall be designated "Confidential" and shall be not be disclosed except as provided herein.
C. Good Cause Also Exists for the Issuance of a Protective Order to Protect Proprietary, Confidential, Business-Sensitive Information
The parties seek only to limit, but not prevent, the disclosure of proprietary and competitively-sensitive business information. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) specifically authorizes issuance of a protective order concerning the disclosure of trade secrets or other confidential information. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 26(c)(1)(G). A protective order may be issued upon a showing of good cause. In re Lifescan, Inc. Consumer Litig., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9894, *5 (N.D. Cal. 1999). Courts generally require parties seeking a protective order to show a particular and specific need for the protection and a showing of serious harm either to business or non-business interests. Id.; see also In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 101 F.R.D. 34, 41 n.7 (CD. Cal. 1984) (holding that "Rule [26(c)(1)(G)] provides that upon a showing of good cause, a court may order that trade secrets, confidential research or other commercial information produced during discovery be protected from public disclosure" and that the "good cause requirement is met by a showing that disclosure will work a clearly defined, specific and serious injury").
Monarch contends that SRS breached the Policies by mishandling, overpaying and over-reserving workers' compensation insurance claims made under the Policies. (See Section A above). According to Monarch, this led to an increased amount Monarch was required to pay on those claims and increased the premiums that insurers charged Monarch under their policies. (Id.). During preliminary Rule 26 discussions, Monarch has indicated that it will seek disclosure or production of SRS' internal claims handling guidelines and procedures. (McShane Decl. ¶¶ 2-3). SRS contends that these documents are confidential, proprietary and/or trade secret, and that disclosure of the documents without a Protective Order would cause SRS competitive and/or financial harm. (Weber Decl. ¶¶ 2-3). SRS' claims handling guidelines and procedures are internal documents disclosed only to employees of SRS and its affiliates. Id. If SRS' competitors obtain those guidelines and procedures and emulate the system SRS has put in place to handle claims, there is a risk that SRS would lose a competitive advantage, which it claims to currently enjoy in the handling of claims. (Id.).
In its Complaint, Monarch also raises issues regarding certain claim handling expense items, including, among other things, the prices SRS charges for medical bill review services. Accordingly, the parties understand that disclosures and discovery may encompass internal information and documents regarding SRS' relationships, procedures and methods for providing, pricing and billing for its services, such as medical bill review. SRS contends that such information and documents are confidential, proprietary and reflect how SRS conducts and prices certain aspects of its business. (Weber Decl., ¶ 3). If SRS' pricing models for medical bill review and other services were produced in this litigation without a Protective Order, SRS would be put at a serious competitive disadvantage. (Id.). SRS' competitors could attempt to use its pricing information and other proprietary business information to lure away current and potential future SRS customers. (Id.).
In an effort to reduce discovery disputes and accommodate each party's competing needs, i.e., Monarch's need for information versus SRS' need to keep its competitively-sensitive information confidential, the parties agreed to seek a protective order.
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
In order to facilitate the discovery process, Monarch and SRS stipulate and agree that documents designated and produced as "confidential" under this Order, including but not limited to confidential material contained in SRS' claim files, SRS' internal claims handling guidelines and procedures, SRS' medical bill review or other internal documents relating to the protocols and pricing of its services, and such internal documents as Monarch may designate as confidential (collectively "Confidential Information") shall be protected according to the following terms and conditions:
1. SRS and/or Monarch will mark or stamp Confidential Information with an appropriate designation indicating its determination that the document(s) or information should be subject to this Stipulated Protective Order. In the case of deposition testimony, SRS and/or Monarch may designate testimony as Confidential by (a) indicating on the record that such testimony is or contains Confidential Information and direct the court reporter to mark or stamp the cover of such transcript with an appropriate designation indicating that it is subject to this Stipulated Protective Order, or (b) designating, by page and line number, and within 30 days after receipt of the deposition transcript, the portions of deposition testimony that are or contain Confidential Information. Except as the Parties otherwise agreed in writing, the Parties shall treat all testimony in any deposition transcript as Confidential Information under this Protective Order until the expiration of such 30-day period.
2. Any Confidential Information or deposition transcript, or any part thereof, that a party so designates shall not be used by the other party or its counsel, or be given by the other party or its counsel, to any third party for use in any business or commercial purpose or any other administrative or judicial proceeding, and the use of said document shall be limited to the preparation and trial of the above-entitled action, including discovery, and any and all appeals and/or retrials.
3. Except as provided by paragraph 4 below, all documents, discovery responses or deposition transcripts designated as containing Confidential Information may be disclosed only to:
a. Counsel for the parties hereto, and clerks, legal assistants, secretaries, paralegals, investigators, and other persons or entities retained by counsel to provide litigation-related services and the employees of said persons or entities;
b. Experts, consultants and other independent contractors retained or employed by counsel to consult with, advise or assist counsel in the preparation or trial of this case;
c. Representatives of the parties hereto who are responsible for assisting counsel in the preparation or trial of this case;
d. Persons who are being prepared by counsel to give testimony at a deposition or at trial, or who are being examined by counsel at a deposition or at trial; and/or
e. Court personnel, including the judge, court reporters and clerks engaged in proceedings necessary to the preparation for trial or the actual trial of this matter.
4. With respect to the disclosure to Monarch's representatives of any "medical information" in any claim file produced by SRS in this action, the "medical information" in such files may only be disclosed to those representatives of Monarch who are counsel in this matter or are responsible for assisting counsel in this matter, except that: (1) if the diagnosis of the injury for which workers' compensation is claimed would affect Monarch's workers' compensation premium, then the diagnosis and treatment for the claimed workers' compensation injury may be disclosed to the appropriate representative(s) of Monarch responsible for monitoring its workers' compensation premium as set forth in Labor Code section 3762; or (2) if the disclosure of such "medical information" is necessary for Monarch to have in order for it to modify the injured employee's work duties, then the necessary "medical information" may be disclosed to the appropriate representative(s) of Monarch responsible for overseeing the modification of the injured employee's work duties as set forth in Labor Code section 3762. The term 'medical information" shall be construed as that term is used in Labor Code section 5762 and Civil Code section 56.05, as follows:
Medical information "means any individually identifiable information, in electronic or physical form, in possession of or derived from a provider or health care or health care service plan regarding a patient's medical history, mental or physical condition, or treatment. 'Individually
identifiable' means that the medical information includes or contains any element of personal identifying information sufficient to allow identification of the individual, such as the patient's name, address, electronic mail address, telephone number, or social security number, or other information that, alone or in combination with other publicly available information, reveals the individual's identity." [Cal. Civ. Code § 56.05(g)].
5. With respect to "medical information" in the claim files claimed to be exempted from disclosure under Labor Code section 3762, SRS will produce such information pursuant to the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order only after the following conditions are met:
a. Counsel for Monarch must send to each claimant/employee, at the employee's present or last known address, written notification in the form of the Notice attached hereto as Exhibit "B" ("Notice"). Subject to the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order, SRS' counsel will provide to Monarch's counsel the last known address for each claimant/employee whose claim files are sought no later than ten (10) business days after Monarch's counsel requests such addresses and identifies in writing the claimant's name and the claim number relating to each claim file being sought.
b. Monarch's counsel will send to SRS' counsel copies of any Notice sent pursuant to subparagraph (a) at the same time such Notices are sent to the claimant/employees.
c. Monarch's counsel will promptly notify SRS' counsel of any written objection received from any employee, or any Notices which are returned as undeliverable.
d. SRS will produce the requested claim file materials no later than ten (10) business days after the Notice-created deadline for the employee to notify counsel of his/her objection, provided there was no objection thereto and further provided that the claim file or any of the documents therein are not protected from disclosure pursuant to a prior order of the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or other court.
e. In the event of an objection by an employee, or a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board or other court order protecting the claim file or any of the documents therein from disclosure, Monarch and/or SRS, by and through their respective counsel, may file a motion seeking a court order allowing production of the requested materials. The non-moving party agrees not to oppose such motion. In the event a notice to an employee is returned as undeliverable, SRS shall produce the requested claim file without either party being obligated to file a motion seeking a court order allowing production of the requested materials.
f. The parties may modify the deadlines specified in Paragraph 5(d) upon their mutual agreement, including the time for production of the requested claim file materials, if compliance with such deadlines is not practicable or feasible. Any agreement to extend such deadlines shall be confirmed by counsel for one of the parties in writing.
6. If, at any time during the pendency of this action, counsel for any party wishes to challenge another party's designation of documents or discovery responses as containing Confidential Information, and exclude such documents and discovery responses from the provisions of this Stipulated Protective Order, the party may proceed under Local Rules. The parties shall first meet and confer to resolve informally any disputes concerning this Stipulated Protective Order before bringing any such motion or application before the Court. If the Court finds it appropriate, the Court may examine the designated material or hear the designated testimony in camera. The parties are not obligated to challenge the propriety of the confidential designation, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent attack on the propriety of such designation.
7. With the exception of the persons identified in paragraph 3(a) and (e) above, the parties shall take appropriate measures to ensure that all persons permitted access to such documents under paragraph 3 of this Stipulated Protective Order shall agree, prior to reviewing such documents, to be bound by the terms and conditions hereof with respect to the use of such documents, and such persons shall sign the agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
8. With the expception of the persons identified in paragraph 3k) All documents designated as containing Confidential Information shall be kept in secure facilities. Access to those facilities shall be permitted only to those designated persons set forth in paragraph 3, as limited by paragraph 4, of this Stipulated Protective Order as properly having access thereto.
9. All documents, including deposition transcripts, containing Confidential Information which are filed or lodged with the Court, shall be filed or lodged in accordance with Local Rule 79-5, in a sealed envelope or other appropriate sealed container on which shall be endorsed the title to the action to which it pertains, an indication of the nature of the contents of such sealed envelope or other container, the notation "DOCUMENT[S] SUBMITTED UNDER SEAL," and a statement substantially in the following form:
"This envelope is sealed and contains confidential information filed [or lodged] in this case by [name of
party] and is not to be opened or the contents thereof displayed or revealed except by order of the court or pursuant to stipulation of the parties to this action."
The envelope or container shall not be opened without order of the Court except by officers of the Court and counsel of record who, after reviewing the contents, shall return them to the clerk in a sealed envelope or container.
10. If Monarch or SRS files any documents or deposition testimony containing Confidential Information with the Court, it shall indicate to the Court on filing what portion(s) thereof are subject to this Stipulated Protective Order, and shall request that the pretrial presentation of such Confidential Information shall be filed under seal. if the request is granted, The Confidential Information shall be kept by the clerk under seal and shall be made available only to the Court and its staff and to the persons authorized by the terms of this Stipulated Protective Order to have access to Confidential Information.
11. Nothing in this order shall prevent counsel for the parties from referencing in support of oral or written legal arguments documents, deposition testimony or other information designated as containing Confidential Information pursuant to this Stipulated Protective Order, provided that such references do not contain quoted material from such confidential materials and, if such confidential materials are submitted to the court," such submission is made in accordance and compliance with the other provisions contained in this Stipulated Protective Order.
12. Prior to the trial of this action, counsel for the parties shall meet and confer, and attempt to agree on an appropriate form of order to submit to the Court regarding the confidential status, if any, to be afforded any Confidential Information which may be disclosed during the course of trial.
13. Upon the final termination of this litigation, counsel for each party shall return to the other party, or destroy, all materials and copies thereof which have been designated as containing Confidential Information, and shall provide counsel (upon request) with a written statement that such documents were returned or destroyed in accordance with this Stipulated Protective Order. Attorney-client communications, and internal memoranda subject to the attorney work product doctrine, which contain Confidential Information do not need to be destroyed, but shall be secured in a manner so as to protect against inadvertent disclosure, shall be kept strictly confidential, and shall remain subject to this Stipulated Protective Order.
ROXBOROUGH, POMERANCE, NYE & ADREANI
LLP
By BRYAN'S. DOSS
Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant
MONARCH CONSULTING, INC. dba PES
PAYROLL
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
By JAMES F. McSHANE
Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC
SMITH ? ELLISON, Professional Corporation
By MICHAEL W. ELLISON
Attorneys for Defendant and Counter-Claimant
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MONARCH CONSULTING, INC. dba
PES PAYROLL,
Plaintiff,
v.
SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants
AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM
Case No. CV11-01764 DSF (AGR)
DECLARATION OF __
CONFIRMING COMPLIANCE WITH
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER
I, ______, declare the following:
1. I have read and I understand the Stipulated Protective Order entered in Monarch Consulting, Inc. dba PES Payroll v. Specialty Risk Services, LLC, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. CV11-01764 DSF (AGR), and I agree to be bound by its terms.
2. In addition, I consent to the jurisdiction of the Central District Court of California with respect to any actions of any kind whatsoever relative to the enforcement of the Stipulated Protective Order, recognizing that in doing so I subject myself to the full powers of that Court, including the power of imposing sanctions for contempt.
3. My address is : ______
4. My telephone number is: ______
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on ___, 2011, at ______, State of ____.
(Signature) ______
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT B
Name
Address
Address
Re: Monarch Consulting, Inc. dba PES Payroll v. Specialty Risk Services, LLC Dear Mr ./Ms.:
A lawsuit is currently pending between plaintiff and counter-defendant Monarch Consulting Inc. dba PES Payroll ("Monarch") and defendant and counter-claimant Specialty Risk Services, LLC ("SRS"), As part of the lawsuit, records pertaining to your workers' compensation claim are being sought for examination by Monarch and/or SRS.
Your workers' compensation claim and any insurance benefits that you received in connection with your claim will not be affected by this lawsuit, or by Monarch's or SRS' examination of the information in your claim file.
This notice is provided to you so that, if you have grounds to do so, you may object to the disclosure of the records described above. If you object, you must notify both of the following individuals in writing within 15 days of the date of this notice:
Attorney for Monarch
Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
Roxborough, Pomerance, Nye & Adreani, LLP
5820 Canoga Avenue, Suite 205
Woodland Hills, California 91367
Telephone: (818)992-9999
Facsimile: (818)992-9991
Attorney for SRS
James F. McShane, Esq.
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
333 South Hope Street, 43*Floor
Los Angeles, California 90071
Telephone: (213)620-1780
Facsimile: (213)620-1398
If you have any questions about this notice, you may wish to consult an Attorney.
Very truly yours,
Nicholas P. Roxborough, Esq.
Attorney for Monarch