Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Centex Homes v. Assurance Co. of America

United States District Court, D. Nevada

April 6, 2017

CENTEX HOMES, a Nevada general partnership, Plaintiff,
v.
ASSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, an Illinois corporation; NORTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK, an Illinois corporation; ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Connecticut corporation; UNIONAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, successor in interest to ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, a London corporation, Defendants.

          PAYNE & FEARS LLP SCOTT S. THOMAS, NV Bar No. 7937 SARAH J. ODIA, NV Bar No. 11053 Attorneys for CENTEX HOMES

          MORALES FIERRO & REEVES RAMIRO MORALES, NV Bar No. 007101 Attorneys for Defendant ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY

          WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP CHAD C. BUTTERFIELD, NV Bar No. 010532 Attorneys for Defendant UNIONAMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO ST. PAUL REINSURANCE COMPANY, LTD.

          [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER

         IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff Centex Homes (“Plaintiff”), on the one hand, and Defendants St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company and Unionamerica Insurance Company Limited, successor in interest to St. Paul Reinsurance Company Limited (“Defendants”), on the other hand, through their respective attorneys of record, that a Protective Order may be entered by this Court as follows:

         1. Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff's responses to defendant St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company's (“St. Paul”) requests for production of documents will require disclosure of documents and information that are confidential, that are attorney work product, and that are attorney-client privileged communications including, but not limited to Plaintiff's attorneys' defense invoices related to the underlying construction defect litigation entitled, Susan H. Story, et al. v. Centex Homes, Second Judicial District Court, Washoe County, Nevada, Case No. CV12-00240 (“Story”), and other information Plaintiff contends is confidential, proprietary, or secret in nature (“Confidential Information”). In order to cost-effectively facilitate the production of these documents, the parties have agreed to enter into a Protective Order on the following terms:

         2. This Protective Order shall limit the use or disclosure of documents and related information which any party contends embodies or discloses confidential information.

         3. Any person designating documents, testimony, or other information as “Confidential” (“Designating Party”) hereunder asserts that he or she believes in good faith that such material is confidential information which is not otherwise available to the public generally.

         4. Designation of a document as “Confidential” shall be made by stamping or writing “CONFIDENTIAL” on the document(s). Alternatively, the parties may designate documents as “Confidential” by producing the documents with a letter designating documents by Bates number as “Confidential.”

         5. Designation of a deposition or other pretrial testimony, or portions thereof, as “Confidential” shall be made by a statement on the record by counsel for the party or other person making the claim of confidentiality at the time of such testimony. The portions of depositions so designated as “Confidential” shall be taken only in the presence of persons qualified to receive such information pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order. Failure of any other person to comply with a request to leave the deposition room will constitute sufficient justification for the witness to refuse to answer any question calling for disclosure of Confidential Information so long as persons not entitled by this Protective Order to have access to such information are in attendance. The parties shall instruct the court reporter to segregate such portions of the deposition in a separate transcript designated as “Confidential.” Portions of such deposition transcripts shall be clearly marked as “Confidential” on the cover or on each page, as appropriate.

         6. No documents or information designated as “Confidential” shall be disclosed by anyone receiving such documents or information (“Receiving Party”) to anyone other than those persons designated herein, and in no event shall confidential information be used, either directly or indirectly, by anyone receiving such information for any business, commercial or competitive purpose or for any purpose whatsoever other than the direct furtherance of the litigation of this action in accordance with the provisions of this Protective Order.

         7. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court or permitted in writing by the Designating Party, a Receiving Party shall not disclose any information or item designated as “Confidential” to any other person except to:

(a) Attorneys of record for the parties and their respective associates, clerks and employees directly involved in the conduct of this litigation;
(b) The parties hereto;
(c) The Court and its ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.