Buck G. Woodall v. The Walt Disney Company
Filing
145
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER by Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick re MOTION for Protective Order. 140 The Motion is granted. Contemporaneously herewith, the Court will issue the Protective Order proposed by the Motion. (See document for details) (vmun) Modified on 4/13/2022 (vmun).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
BUCK G. WOODALL,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
______________________________)
NO. CV 20-3772-CBM(Ex)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
17
18
The Court has read and considered all papers filed in support of
19
and in opposition to “Defendants’ Motion for Protective Order, filed
20
March 25, 2022 (“the Motion”).
21
submission without oral argument.
22
2022.
The Court has taken the Motion under
See Minute Order, filed April 8,
23
24
The parties have agreed on the terms of a protective order, with
25
the exception of two disputed provisions sought by Defendants and
26
opposed by Plaintiff: (1) a provision precluding Mitchell Stein
27
(“Stein”) from having access to any documents Defendants designate as
28
“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only”; and (2) a provision that
1
the designating party may designate as confidential an entire document
2
when the document contains both confidential information and
3
information otherwise available to the public or to the receiving
4
party.
5
6
Where there exists “good cause,” Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules
7
of Civil Procedure authorizes the Court to protect parties from “undue
8
burden or expense” in discovery by ordering “that a trade secret or
9
other confidential research, development, or commercial information
10
not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way.”
11
Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1469–70 (9th Cir.),
12
cert. denied, 506 U.S. 869 (1992); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c).
See Brown
13
14
1.
Preclusion of Stein from Having Access to Documents
15
Defendants Designate as “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’
16
Eyes Only”
17
18
A privilege log Plaintiff served in February of 2022 indicates
19
that Plaintiff has withheld, under claim of attorney-client privilege,
20
an email from Stein dated December 13, 2021 (see “Declaration of Peter
21
Shimamoto in Support of Defendants’ Motion for a Protective Order”
22
(“Shimamoto Dec.”), Ex. R).
23
Plaintiff’s brother and two of Plaintiff’s attorneys saw or received
24
this email (id.).
The privilege log also indicates that
25
26
Stein’s role in this litigation is somewhat unclear.
Plaintiff
27
has offered differing characterizations of Stein: (1) “a member of
28
Plaintiff’s outside counsel litigation team” (see Shimamoto Dec., Ex.
2
1
O); (2) an individual “akin” to a paralegal or clerical staff of
2
counsel of record acting under attorney supervision (id.); (3) a
3
“paralegal and research assistant who is employed and being supervised
4
by Plaintiff’s counsel of record” on a “pro bono” basis (“Plaintiff’s
5
Supplemental Memorandum, etc.”, p. 3); and (4) a “Consultant to
6
Plaintiff’s Counsel” (see Shimamoto Dec., Ex. R).
7
identify the particular firm which may employ Stein, and Plaintiff
8
does not identify the particular person(s) for whom Stein provides
9
services.
Plaintiff does not
10
11
It is undisputed that Stein was a California attorney and that
12
Stein is currently suspended from practicing law in this State.
13
also undisputed that, in 2013, Stein was convicted of multiple
14
felonies involving fraud, for which Stein served a lengthy term in
15
federal prison.
It is
16
17
18
The Court grants Defendants’ unopposed Request for Judicial
Notice of the following documents:1
19
20
1.
An “Order of Involuntary Inactive Enrollment,” filed
21
December 29, 2011, in the California State Bar Court Hearing
22
Department in In re Mitchell J. Stein, case number 11-TR-18758-RAH
23
///
24
///
25
///
26
27
28
1
See Mir v. Little Company of Mary Hosp., 844 F.2d 646,
649 (9th Cir. 1988) (court may take judicial notice of court
records).
3
1
(Shimamoto Dec.,
Ex. S);2
2
3
2.
A “Notice of Disciplinary Charges” filed in the State Bar
4
Court by the State Bar of California Office of the Chief Trial Counsel
5
on December 14, 2012, charging Stein with eleven counts of misconduct
6
in connection with Stein’s representation of members of “mass joinder”
7
lawsuits filed against mortgagors relating to alleged mortgage
8
defaults, foreclosures and/or loan modifications (Shimamoto Dec., Ex.
9
T).
Stein’s alleged misconduct included failure to render promised
10
services, failure to communicate with clients, failure to refund
11
unearned fees, failure to render accounts of client funds and
12
conversion of client funds (id.).
13
Charges” further alleged that, after the State Bar had suspended Stein
14
from the practice of law, Stein had employed two licensed attorneys as
15
“straw men” for the purpose of enabling Stein to continue to practice
16
law sub rosa (id.).
17
alleged that, on or about August 15, 2011, the Superior Court assumed
18
jurisdiction over Stein’s law practice, and that, on December 29,
19
2011, the State Bar ordered Stein involuntarily enrolled as an
20
inactive member of the State Bar (id.).
The “Notice of Disciplinary
The “Notice of Disciplinary Charges” further
21
22
3.
A “Transmittal of Records of Conviction of Attorney, etc.,”
23
filed August 14, 2013, in the Office of the California State Bar
24
Court, indicating that, on May 20, 2013, Stein was convicted of crimes
25
26
27
28
2
Although the copy of this document submitted by
Defendants and the copy of the same document on the State Bar’s
website do not bear a signature or a signature date, the State
Bar’s website confirms that Stein was deemed not eligible to
practice law as of January 1, 2012.
4
1
of moral turpitude in United States v. Stein, United States District
2
Court for the Southern District of Florida case number 11-CR-80205
3
(Shimamoto Dec., Ex. U); and
4
5
4.
An Order of the State Bar of California Review Department,
6
dated September 8, 2013, ordering Stein suspended from the practice of
7
law effective October 1, 2013, pursuant to California Business and
8
Professions Code section 6102, in light of Stein’s conviction and
9
“pending final disposition of this proceeding” (Shimamoto Dec., Ex.
10
V).3
11
12
The Court also has reviewed federal and state court dockets,
13
which show the following:4
14
///
15
///
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Under California Business and Professions Code section
6102(c), after a judgment of conviction has become final, “the
Supreme Court shall summarily disbar the attorney if the offense
is a felony under the laws of California, the United States, or
any state or territory thereof, and either: (1) an element of the
offense is the specific intent to deceive, defraud, steal, or
make or suborn a false statement, or involved moral turpitude, or
(2) the facts and circumstances of the offense involved moral
turpitude.” Even so, the California Supreme Court apparently has
yet to issue a disbarment order against Stein.
4
The Court takes judicial notice of the dockets and
documents described below. See Mir v. Little Company of Mary
Hosp., 844 F.2d at 649; see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)(1) (court
“may take judicial notice on its own”). The dockets and imaged
documents in the federal actions are available on the PACER
database at www.pacer.gov. The dockets in the California state
court actions are available on the California courts’ website at
www.courts.ca.gov. Documents concerning Stein on the website of
the State Bar of California may be found at
https://apps.calbar.ca.gov.
5
1
1.
United States v. Stein, United States District Court for the
2
Southern District of Florida case number 9:11-cr-80205-KAM.
An
3
Indictment filed on December 13, 2011, charged Stein with multiple
4
offenses arising out of Stein’s involvement with Heart Tronics, Inc.,
5
formerly doing business as Sigalife, Inc. and Recom Managed Systems,
6
LLC, a company allegedly involved in the sale of heart monitoring
7
devices.
8
and mail fraud, three counts of mail fraud, three counts of wire
9
fraud, three counts of securities fraud, three counts of money
The Indictment charged Stein with conspiracy to commit wire
10
laundering and one count of conspiracy to obstruct justice, the last
11
count being based on allegations that Stein testified falsely before
12
the SEC on multiple occasions.
13
others perpetrated a scheme to defraud Sigalife investors by, among
14
other things: (1) artificially inflating the price and demand for
15
Sigalife stock; (2) concealing defendants’ ownership and trading of
16
Sigalife stock; (3) misappropriating Sigalife’s assets; and
17
(4) testifying falsely to the SEC to conceal their conduct.
18
Indictment alleged, among other things, that Stein and his
19
coconspirators: (a) created false purchase orders, false and
20
misleading press releases and a false and misleading SEC filing;
21
(b) concealed their ownership and trading of Sigalife stock by false
22
and misleading practices; and (c) misappropriated Sigalife’s assets by
23
orchestrating sham agreements through which Sigalife paid cash and
24
stock to third parties.
The Indictment alleged that Stein and
The
25
26
Although Stein was represented by several attorneys before and
27
after trial, Stein represented himself during trial (with the
28
assistance of standby counsel).
On May 20, 2013, a jury found Stein
6
1
guilty on all counts.
2
posttrial motions, including several motions for a new trial.
3
order, the court denied Stein’s motion for a new trial, two amended
4
motions for a new trial and a “second” motion for a new trial, finding
5
the motions “not only to be baseless, but also offensive.”
6
Denying Posttrial Motions” filed June 9, 2014 (Dkt. No. 340).
7
December 8, 2014, the court sentenced Stein to a prison term of 204
8
months plus two years’ supervised release.
9
filed April 8, 2015, the court imposed restitution in the sum of
10
Thereafter, Stein filed numerous pro se
In one
See “Order
On
In an “Amended Judgment”
$13,186,025.85.
11
12
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
13
affirmed the conviction, but vacated Stein’s sentence and remanded for
14
resentencing.
15
2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 556 (2017).
16
court resentenced Stein to 150 months’ imprisonment plus three years’
17
supervised release, and imposed restitution in the sum of $1,029,570.
18
See United States v. Stein, 964 F.3d 1313 (11th Cir.), cert. denied,
19
141 S. Ct. 954 (2020).
20
See id.
See United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1135 (11th Cir.
On remand, the district
The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the judgment.
21
22
2.
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Heart Tronics, Inc.,
23
United States District Court for the Central District of California,
24
case number SA CV 11-1962-SVW(KESx), filed on December 20, 2011 (a
25
week after the filing of the Florida criminal case).
26
enforcement action against various defendants, including Stein and his
27
wife, the SEC alleged that: (1) Stein was Heart Tronics’ purported
28
outside counsel, de facto controlling officer and husband of its
7
In this civil
1
majority shareholder; and (2) Stein engaged in a fraudulent scheme to
2
inflate the price of Heart Tronics stock in order to profit from
3
selling its securities to investors, by creating false purchase orders
4
with fictitious companies as the basis for SEC filings and for press
5
releases touting sales of Heart Tronics’ heart monitoring system.
6
Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Stein, 906 F.3d 823, 826 (9th Cir.
7
2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 245 (2019).
8
conviction in the Southern District of Florida, the district court
9
granted the SEC’s motion for summary judgment on a number of the
See
Following Stein’s
10
securities fraud claims on the ground that the doctrine of collateral
11
estoppel precluded Stein from contesting the SEC’s allegations in the
12
civil case.
See id. at 828.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Id. at 934.
13
14
3.
In the Matter of Mitchell J. Stein, State Bar Court of
15
California Hearing Department case number 1-TR-18758-RAH.
16
indicated above, the State Bar’s website contains an “Order of
17
Involuntary Inactive Enrollment” regarding Stein, filed December 29,
18
2011.
19
Angeles County Superior Court assuming jurisdiction over Stein’s law
20
practice.
21
an inactive member of the State Bar.
22
on the State Bar’s website is not dated or signed.
23
website confirms that Stein was deemed “not eligible to practice law”
24
as of January 1, 2012.
As
The Order references an October 26, 2011 order of the Los
The State Bar Court ordered Stein involuntarily enrolled as
The copy of the Order contained
However, the
25
26
4.
In the Matter of Attorneys Suspended or Disbarred by the
27
State Bar of California, etc., United States District Court for the
28
Southern District of California case number 3:12-mc-00230.
8
On
1
April 4, 2012, the court issued an order disbarring Stein from that
2
court.
3
4
5.
In re Mitchell J. Stein., United States District Court for
5
the
6
On May 7, 2012, the Court issued an order disbarring Stein from this
7
Court.
Central District of California case number CV 12-mc-00132-ABC.
8
9
6.
MGM Grand Hotel LLC v. Stein, United States District Court
10
for the District of Nevada case number 2:07-cv-01349-JCM-LRL.
11
complaint filed in state court on March 29, 2007, the plaintiff
12
alleged that Stein had delivered to it six negotiable credit
13
instruments in the total sum of $600,000 which were returned
14
dishonored and unpaid.
15
where his attorney subsequently obtained a court order permitting the
16
attorney to withdraw.
17
motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.
18
Judgment was entered on December 19, 2008, awarding the plaintiff
19
damages in the sum of $570,000.00, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.5
In a
Stein removed the action to federal court
Stein filed no opposition to the plaintiff’s
An Amended
20
21
7.
State of California v. Stein, Los Angeles County Superior
22
Court case number LS021817.
23
verified petition and application for assumption of jurisdiction over
24
defendant’s law practice under Business and Professions Code section
25
6190 et seq.
On August 15, 2011, the State Bar filed a
See People v. Stein, 2018 WL 2214715, at *4 (Cal. App.
26
5
27
28
The plaintiff subsequently filed a certification of the
judgment in this Court, in MGM Grand Hotel LLC v. Stein, United
States District Court for the Central District of California case
number SACV 09-mc-00001-UA.
9
1
May 15, 2018), cert. denied, 139 S. Ct. 828 (2019).
On October 13,
2
2011, the trial court issued permanent orders authorizing the State
3
Bar to assume jurisdiction over defendant’s law practice.
Id.
4
5
8.
People v. Stein, Los Angeles County Superior Court case
6
number LC094571.
7
and others on August 15, 2011, the same day the State Bar filed suit
8
seeking to assume jurisdiction over Stein’s practice.
9
alleged that the defendants had engaged in unfair business and
The State of California filed charges against Stein
The State
10
advertising practices in connection with the solicitation of
11
distressed homeowners to participate in “mass joinder” lawsuits
12
against mortgage lenders.
13
of the defendants settled except Stein.
14
prosecution and civil enforcement actions against Stein, and after
15
obtaining provisional relief, the State indicated a willingness to
16
dismiss the action against Stein, observing that Stein allegedly was
17
“judgment-proof.”
18
judgment against Stein on a claim for attorneys’ fees, which the Court
19
of Appeal affirmed.
See People v. Stein, 2018 WL 2214715.
Id. at *3.
Id.
All
Following the criminal
However, the State did obtain summary
Id.
20
21
9.
Working for Help v. Cain, United States District Court for
22
the Central District of California case number CV 11-6677-SVW(SSx).
23
Stein and another attorney, Erickson Davis, represented the
24
plaintiffs, purported charitable enterprises, in this putative class
25
action filed on August 15, 2011.
26
violations against: the SEC Chairman; SEC employees; an officer of
27
“Recom Managed Systems” Lee Ehrlichman; Recom’s counsel; and unknown
28
postal inspectors and FBI agents.
The complaint alleged civil rights
The complaint, among other things,
10
1
alleged that the defendants had committed the murder or manslaughter
2
of one million Americans, and further alleged that the plaintiffs had
3
suffered damages in excess of a trillion dollars.
4
(after the State Bar had assumed jurisdiction over Stein’s practice
5
and after the State Bar had deemed Stein ineligible to practice law),
6
Stein and his co-counsel filed a first amended complaint bearing
7
Stein’s signature and identifying Stein as counsel.
8
SEC Defendants moved to dismiss and also to disqualify counsel,
9
arguing that Stein was not authorized to practice law in California
On December 7, 2012
Thereafter, the
10
and was the defendant in an SEC enforcement action and a criminal
11
prosecution in Florida, both of which concerned Recom.
12
February 28, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary
13
dismissal.
On
14
15
The website of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) shows that
16
Stein was released on January 13, 2022.6
17
purportedly authored the December 13, 2021 email identified on
18
Plaintiff’s privilege log, Stein evidently was still in BOP custody.
Thus, at the time Stein
19
20
Presently, Stein is unconstrained by the rules of professional
21
responsibility governing the conduct of attorneys in this Court.
22
Cal. State Bar Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.0 (stating that
23
the “rules together with any standards adopted by the Board of
24
Trustees pursuant to these rules shall be binding upon all lawyers”);
25
26
27
28
6
The Court takes judicial notice of the contents of the
“Find an Inmate” section of the BOP’s website, available at
www.bop.gov. See United States v. Basher, 629 F.3d 1161, 1165 &
n.2 (9th Cir. 2011) (taking judicial notice of information from
BOP inmate locator).
11
See
1
Local Rule 83-3.1.2 (adopting, for “each attorney,” “the standards of
2
professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of
3
California and contained in the State Bar Act, the Rules of
4
Professional Conduct of the State Bar of California, and the decisions
5
of any court applicable thereto”); Allergan, Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA,
6
2017 WL 772486, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017) (denying motion to
7
amend protective order to permit non-attorney employees of party to
8
access documents designated as confidential, observing that the non-
9
parties were not officers of the court, were not bound by the same
10
Code of Professional Responsibility, and were not subject to the same
11
sanctions as licensed attorneys).
12
13
The Court finds that Stein’s history reflects such a level of
14
untrustworthiness and moral turpitude as to warrant the preclusion of
15
Stein from having access to documents designated by Defendants as
16
“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” in this case.7
17
access to such documents, which may well include valuable intellectual
18
property, would pose an unreasonable risk of disclosure of the
19
documents to others, including Defendants’ competitors.
20
Shartle, 2020 WL 6781608, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 18, 2020) (in an action
21
brought by the spouse and the estate of a BOP inmate, granting motion
22
for “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” provision in protective order prohibiting
23
the spouse from having access to discovery information where the
24
spouse previously had violated a court order).
25
on this record that a preclusion of Stein’s access to documents
Stein’s
Cf. Smith v.
There is no indication
26
7
27
28
The evidence of Stein’s untrustworthiness dates back
many years. However, there is no evidence before the Court that
Stein became more trustworthy while in prison or after his recent
release therefrom.
12
1
designated by Defendants as “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes
2
Only” would impair Plaintiff’s prosecution of this case in any
3
appreciable respect.
4
which presumably can call upon the services of multiple competent
5
paralegals, clerks, research assistants and consultants other than
6
Stein.
7
Stein from having access to documents designated by Defendants as
8
“Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”8
Plaintiff is represented by multiple law firms
In sum, good cause exists for a protective order precluding
9
10
2.
Provision That the Designating Party May Designate an Entire
11
Document as Confidential When the Document Contains Both
12
Confidential Information and Information Otherwise Available
13
to the Public or to the Receiving Party
14
15
Plaintiff already has served thousands of document requests in
16
this case (see Shimamoto Dec., Ex. C; see also “Plaintiff’s Motion to
17
Compel Production of Documents” filed March 12, 2022, Joint
18
Stipulation, p. 2).
19
initially to separate out from their presumably thousands or hundreds
20
of thousands of confidential, responsive documents those pages or
21
portions of pages which may contain non-confidential information.
22
Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1) (discovery must be proportional to the needs
23
of the case); F.R.C.P. 26(b)(2(C) (authorizing protective order
24
limiting discovery which is “outside the scope permitted by Rule
The Court declines to require Defendants
25
26
27
28
8
This Court encourages the employment and the
rehabilitation of ex-felons, and Plaintiff remains at liberty to
trust Stein with Plaintiff’s most confidential information.
However, for the reasons discussed herein, Plaintiff should not
be at liberty to force Defendants to trust Stein with theirs.
13
See
1
26(b)(1))”; Procaps S.A. v. Patheon Inc., 2013 WL 4773433, at *6 (S.D.
2
Fla. Sept. 4, 2013) (“Discovery is a means to an end: learning
3
relevant facts, documents, and witnesses so that a party is not
4
ambushed by surprise information.
5
has become: an expensive, time-consuming litigation within the
6
litigation.
7
context by noting that the practical burdens (i.e., inordinate time
8
and expense) associated with a page-by-page or section-by-section
9
designation protocol militate against such a default rule, unless the
It is not meant to be what it often
Courts have recognized this in the confidentiality
10
parties otherwise agree.”) (citations omitted); S2 Automation LLC v.
11
Micron Tech., Inc., 283 F.R.D. 671, 686 (D.N.M. 2012) (requiring a
12
document-by-document review “could increase the cost of production
13
dramatically and make production more time consuming.
14
better and more simple just to designate a document as confidential to
15
facilitate speedy production of discovery.”).
16
confidential documents may proceed on a document-by-document basis.
Sometimes it is
Initial designations of
17
18
ORDER
19
20
For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is granted.
21
Contemporaneously herewith, the Court will issue the Protective Order
22
proposed by the Motion.
23
24
DATED:
April 13, 2022.
25
26
27
/S/
CHARLES F. EICK
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
28
14
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?