1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EVEREST NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, 12 Plaintiff, 13 No. 2:25-cv-0399 DC AC v. 14 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a 15 municipal corporation of the State of ORDER California, 16 Defendant. 17

18 ALLIED WORLD NATIONAL 19 ASSURANCE COMPANY, No. 2:25-cv-0400 DC AC 20 Plaintiff, 21 v. 22 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipal corporation of the State of 23 California, 24 Defendant. 25 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS 26

27 28 1 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties’ Stipulated Protective Order (ECF No. 33), is 2 APPROVED and INCORPORATED herein. 3 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT: 4 1. Requests to seal documents shall be made by motion before the same judge who will 5 decide the matter related to that request to seal. 6 2. The designation of documents (including transcripts of testimony) as confidential 7 pursuant to this order does not automatically entitle the parties to file such a document with the 8 court under seal. Parties are advised that any request to seal documents in this district is governed 9 by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 141. In brief, Local Rule 141 provides that documents may only 10 be sealed by a written order of the court after a specific request to seal has been made. Local 11 Rule 141(a). However, a mere request to seal is not enough under the local rules. In particular, 12 Local Rule 141(b) requires that “[t]he ‘Request to Seal Documents’ shall set forth the statutory or 13 other authority for sealing, the requested duration, the identity, by name or category, of persons to 14 be permitted access to the document, and all relevant information.” Local Rule 141(b) (emphasis 15 added). 16 3. A request to seal material must normally meet the high threshold of showing that 17 “compelling reasons” support secrecy; however, where the material is, at most, “tangentially 18 related” to the merits of a case, the request to seal may be granted on a showing of “good cause.” 19 Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC,

(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 20

(2016); Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu,

(9th 21 Cir. 2006). 22 4. Nothing in this order shall limit the testimony of parties or non-parties, or the use of 23 certain documents, at any court hearing or trial – such determinations will only be made by the 24 court at the hearing or trial, or upon an appropriate motion. 25 5. With respect to motions regarding any disputes concerning this protective order which 26 the parties cannot informally resolve, including any disputes regarding inadvertently produced 27 materials under Fed. R. Evid. 502, the parties shall follow the procedures outlined in Local Rule 28 251. Absent a showing of good cause, the court will not hear discovery disputes on an ex parte 1 || basis or on shortened time. 2 6. The parties may not modify the terms of this Protective Order without the court’s 3 || approval. Ifthe parties agree to a potential modification, they shall submit a stipulation 4 || and proposed order for the court’s consideration. 5 7. Pursuant to Local Rule 141.1(f), the court will not retain jurisdiction over enforcement 6 || of the terms of this Protective Order after the action is terminated. 7 8. Any provision in the parties’ stipulation (ECF No. 33) that is in conflict with anything 8 | in this order is hereby DISAPPROVED. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 | DATED: September 22, 2025 ~ thin Chane ALLISON CLAIRE 12 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28