Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al, No. 2:2015cv01786 - Document 555 (D. Nev. 2023)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 554 Stipulation to Substitute Redacted Exhibits. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 4/6/2023. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JQC)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allstate Insurance Company et al v. Shah, MD et al Doc. 555 1 JONATHAN W. CARLSON Nevada Bar No. 10536 2 TODD W. BAXTER Admitted Pro Hac Vice 3 GREGORY S. MASON Admitted Pro Hac Vice 4 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH LLP 5 8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 6 Telephone: (702) 949-1100 Facsimile: (702) 949-1101 7 jonathan.carlson@mccormickbarstow.com todd.baxter@mccormickbarstow.com 8 greg.mason@mccormickbarstow.com 9 ERON Z. CANNON Nevada Bar No. 8013 10 FAIN ANDERSON VANDERHOEF ROSENDAHL O’HALLORAN SPILLANE PLLC 11 701 5th Avenue #4750 Seattle, Washington 98104 12 Telephone: (206) 749-0094 Facsimile: (206) 749-0194 13 eron@favros.com 14 Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 17 ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY 18 INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, and ALLSTATE 19 FIRE & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, 20 Plaintiffs, 21 v. 22 RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, DIPTI R. SHAH, 23 MD, RUSSELL J. SHAH, MD, LTD., DIPTI R. SHAH, MD, LTD., and RADAR 24 MEDICAL GROUP, LLP dba UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE, DOES 1-100, and ROES 25 101-200, 26 CASE NO. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] Defendants. 27 AND RELATED CLAIMS 28 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 460) Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE 4 PROPERTY & CASUALTY COMPANY, ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, and 5 ALLSTATE FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Allstate”), 6 and Defendants and Counterclaimant RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., DIPTI R. SHAH, M.D., 7 RUSSELL J. SHAH, M.D., LTD., DIPTI R. SHAH, M.D., LTD., and RADAR MEDICAL GROUP, 8 LLP d/b/a UNIVERSITY URGENT CARE (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Radar 9 Parties”), by and through their respective counsel of record stipulate and agree as follows: 10 1. On March 10, 2023, the Honorable Court issued an Order Granting in Part Motion 11 to Seal Exhibits (ECF No. 545) with respect to Allstate’s Motion to Seal Exhibits in Response to 12 the Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 512). The Court, having considered 13 the public’s right to inspect and copy judicial records, issued instructions to the parties to meet and 14 confer about redactions of the at-issue exhibits and whether any portions of said exhibits should be 15 sealed or redacted. 16 2. In compliance with the Court’s Order, the parties met and conferred and reached an 17 agreement as to redactions of certain exhibits submitted in support of Allstate’s Response (ECF No. 18 511) to the Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Allstate’s Failure to File an 19 Answer to the Amended Counterclaims (ECF No. 457). 20 3. The parties hereby stipulate to the substitution of Allstate’s Appendix of Exhibits to 21 Allstate’s Response to Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF Nos. 511, 513), 22 consisting of Exhibits 1-15, containing redactions of confidential and/or protected business and/or 23 financial information of the parties and/or private information for non-parties in lieu of sealing the 24 entirety of these exhibits. 25 4. If necessary or required by this Court, the parties respectfully request that this 26 Stipulation be treated as a joint motion. 27 5. The redacted Appendix of Exhibits and redacted Exhibits to be substituted and 28 replaced with redacted copies to Allstate’s Response to Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 2 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] 1 Judgment Regarding Allstate’s Failure to File an Answer to the Amended Counterclaims are 2 attached to this Stipulation and Order as Exhibit A. 3 6. 4 5 a. b. c. Exhibit 3: No redactions are necessary or required, and Exhibit 3 will be publicly-filed; 10 d. Exhibit 4: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) the names and 11 contact information of former employees of Radar Medical Group (who are non-parties to 12 this case), (ii) financial information for the Radar Parties, and (iii) confidential business 13 opportunities and investments for the Radar Parties. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 14 4 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 15 e. Exhibit 5: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private business 16 and financial information for the Radar Parties and (ii) references to other, unrelated matters 17 involving Allstate. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 5 is being publicly-filed with the 18 Court; 19 f. Exhibit 6: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private business 20 and financial information for the Radar Parties, (ii) the names of non-party patients of Radar 21 Medical Group and/or contact information for non-parties to this case, and (iii) references to 22 other, unrelated matters involving Allstate. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 5 is being 23 publicly-filed with the Court; 24 g. Exhibit 7: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private business 25 information for the expert and (ii) private business and financial information for the Radar 26 Parties. As a result, a redacted copy of Exhibit 7 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 27 28 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Exhibit 2: This document was previously publicly-filed and no redactions are necessary or required; 8 9 Exhibit 1: This document was previously publicly-filed and no redactions are necessary or required; 6 7 As it relates to each Exhibit: h. Exhibit 8: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private business information for the expert, (ii) private business and financial information for the Radar Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 3 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] 1 Parties, and (iii) the name of a non-party patient of Radar Medical Group. As a result, a 2 redacted copy of Exhibit 8 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 3 4 i. publicly-filed; 5 6 j. k. Exhibit 11: This document was previously publicly-filed and no redactions are necessary or required; 9 10 Exhibit 10: No redactions are necessary or required, and Exhibit 10 will be publicly-filed; 7 8 Exhibit 9: No redactions are necessary or required, and Exhibit 9 will be l. Exhibit 12: This document was previously publicly-filed and no redactions are necessary or required; 11 m. Exhibit 13: The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private contact 12 information for the deponent, (ii) private financial information for the Radar Parties, and (iii) 13 references to other, unrelated matters involving Allstate. As a result, a redacted copy of 14 Exhibit 13 is being publicly-filed with the Court; 15 n. Exhibit 14; The parties agree that it is appropriate to redact (i) private contact 16 information for the deponent, (ii) private financial information for the Radar Parties, and (iii) 17 references to other, unrelated matters involving Allstate. As a result, a redacted copy of 18 Exhibit 14 is being publicly-filed with the Court; and 19 o. Exhibit 15: This document was previously publicly-filed and no redactions 20 are necessary or required. 21 7. The parties maintain that compelling reasons exist to justify these redactions, beyond 22 treatment of the information as confidential pursuant to the terms of the Stipulated Confidentiality 23 Agreement and Protective Order (ECF No. 39). See, e.g., Kamakana v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 24 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 2006). Specifically, and as noted above: 25 a. The exhibits contain or reference private information related to non-parties 26 to this case for which redaction is warranted, see, e.g., Ansara v. Maldonado, No. 2:19-cv- 27 01394-GMN-VCF, 2022 WL 17253803, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 1, 2022); Cox v. Lewis, No. 28 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 4 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] 1 2:20-cv-01792-JCM-BNW, 2022 WL 10632379, at *2 (D. Nev. Oct. 18, 2022); Brodsky v. 2 Baca, No. 3:14-cv-00641-RCJ-WGC, 2015 WL 6962867, at *1 (D. Nev. Nov. 10, 2015); 3 b. The exhibits contain confidential business and financial information related 4 to the Radar Parties for which redaction is warranted, see, e.g., Boca Park Marketplace 5 Syndications Group, LLC v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., 2:16-cv-01197-RFB-PAL, 2018 WL 6 1524432, at *5 (D. Nev. Mar. 28, 2018); Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Elec-Tech Int’l Co., No. 7 14-cv-02737-BLF, 2015 WL 581574, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2015); and/or 8 c. 9 The exhibits contain confidential business information related to Allstate for which redaction is warranted, see, e.g., In re Google Location History Litig., 514 F. Supp. 10 3d 1147, 1162 (N.D. Cal. 2021); Koninklijke Philips N.V., 2015 WL 581574, at *2. 11 8. The Court has previously recognized that similar information found in exhibits 12 attached to the parties’ briefing on summary judgment is appropriately subject to redaction. See 13 generally Order, filed Feb. 28, 2023 (ECF No. 507). Such ruling aligns with prior rulings by the 14 Court. See Order, filed Sept. 20, 2016 (ECF No. 67); Order, filed Apr. 4, 2017 (ECF No. 133); 15 Order, filed Apr. 4, 2017 (ECF No. 134); Order Grant. Mots. Seal, filed Jan. 2, 2018 (ECF No. 217). 16 / / / 17 / / / 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 / / / 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 5 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] 1 9. For these reasons, the parties respectfully request that the Court approve this 2 Stipulation and enter an Order redacting Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, and 14 to Allstate’s Response 3 (ECF No. 511) to the Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary Judgment Regarding Allstate’s Failure to 4 File an Answer to the Amended Counterclaims (ECF No. 457). 5 IT IS SO STIPULATED. 6 Dated: March 31, 2023 Dated: March 31, 2023 7 McCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, WAYTE & CARRUTH, LLP BAILEY KENNEDY 8 9 10 11 12 By: /s/ Todd W. Baxter JONATHAN W. CARLSON, ESQ. TODD W. BAXTER, ESQ. GREGORY S. MASON, ESQ. 8337 West Sunset Road, Suite 350 Las Vegas, Nevada 89113 ERON Z. CANNON, ESQ. JENNIFER M. SMITROVICH, ESQ. FAIN ANDERSON VANDERHOEF ROSENDAHL O’HALLORAN SPILLANE, PLLC 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4750 Seattle, Washington 98104 13 14 15 16 By: /s/ Joshua P. Gilmore DENNIS L, KENNEDY, ESQ. JOSEPH A. LIEBMAN, ESQ. JOSHUA P. GILMORE, ESQ. TAYLER D. BINGHAM, ESQ. 8984 Spanish Ridge Avenue Las Vegas, Nevada 89148 Attorneys for Defendants and Counterclaimant Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants 17 18 ORDER 19 Based on the parties’ Stipulation, including the specific factual findings for overcoming the 20 public’s presumptive right of access to judicial records; the standards for seeking to seal or redact 21 documents attached to a dispositive motion pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s directives in Kamakana 22 v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), and Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler 23 Group, LLC, 809 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2016); upon balancing the competing interests of the public 24 and the parties; and good cause appearing, 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 6 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460] 1 IT IS ORDERED that the above Stipulation is granted. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that compelling reasons exist to redact Exhibits 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 3 13, and 14 to Allstate’s Response (ECF No. 511) to the Radar Parties’ Motion for Summary 4 Judgment Regarding Allstate’s Failure to File an Answer to the Amended Counterclaims (ECF No. 5 457). 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 DATED: April 6, 2023 10 9021053.1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MCCORMICK, BARSTOW, SHEPPARD, W AYTE & CARRUTH LLP 8337 W. SUNSET RD, SUITE 350 LAS VEGAS, NV 89113 Case No. 2:15-cv-01786-APG-DJA 7 STIPULATION AND ORDER TO SUBSTITUTE REDACTED EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF ALLSTATE’S RESPONSE TO RADAR PARTIES’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [Doc. 460]
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
