Skip to main content
INTERNAL PROTOTYPE — NOT LEGAL ADVICE — DO NOT SEND

Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)

Citation
Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Parent Document
Nativi v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co., 223 Cal. App. 4th 261 (2014)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2014-01-23

Other Sections in This Document (81)

Full Text

2,381 chars
invaded']; see also Connecticut Indem. Co. v. Superior Court (2000) 23 Cal.4th 807, 817
. . . [assuming without deciding that insured corporations have constitutional and
statutory privacy rights]; Hecht, Solberg, Robinson, Goldberg & Bagley v. Superior
Court (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 579, 593-594 . . . [same as applied to partnerships].)"
(S.B.C.C., Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 383, 396, fn.
6.) The California Supreme Court has described two categories of privacy interests:
"Legally recognized privacy interests are generally of two classes: (1) interests in
precluding the dissemination or misuse of sensitive and confidential information
('informational privacy'); and (2) interests in making intimate personal decisions or
conducting personal activities without observation, intrusion, or interference ('autonomy
privacy')." (Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn. (1994) 7 Cal.4th 1, 35.)
                                            62
application, respondents filed their counsel's declaration, which stated in part: "There is
absolutely no prejudice to Plaintiffs whatsoever in keeping these documents from
dissemination outside of this lawsuit, yet AHMSI is severely prejudiced if these
documents are not provided any protection at all." No factual basis or articulated
reasoning was given for this assertion. The declaration did not even affirmatively assert
that the documents constituted or contained confidential commercial or private
information.
       With their application, respondents submitted a sweeping proposed order that
provided procedures for designating material as confidential and challenging
confidentiality designations, extensive restrictions regarding the use of designated
materials in discovery and in court, and provisions for the return and destruction of
materials received at the conclusion of the litigation.17 The proposed order broadly
stated: "All Confidential Information produced or exchanged in the course of this case
(not including information that is publicly available) shall be used by the Party or Parties
to whom the information is produced solely for the purpose of this case."
       The parties stipulated that the documents produced at the August 16, 2011
deposition would be conditionally protected as confidential pending the court's ruling on
AHMSI's motion for a protective order.