Central Facilities Operating Company, L.L.C. v. Cinemark U.S.A., Inc. et al

Filing 39

RULING granting in part and denying in part, as stated, 29 Sealed Motion for Protective Order and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Its Memorandum and Certain Exhibits in Support of Its Motion for Remand. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 2/3/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

CENTRAL FACILITIES OPERATING
COMPANY, L.L.C.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NUMBER 11-660-JJB-SCR

CINEMARK U.S.A., INC., ET AL
RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND
MOTION TO FILE MEMORANDUM AND EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
Before the court is the Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective
Order and Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Its Memorandum and
Certain Exhibits in Support of Its Motion for Remand to State
Court.

Record document number 29.

Americas,

Inc.

filed

a

response,

Defendant Jones Lang LaSalle
which

opposed

entry

of

a

protective order in the form proposed by the plaintiff and offered
a different version.1

Defendant Cinemark USA, Inc. adopted by

reference defendant Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc.’s response to
the

plaintiff’s

motion.2

These

defendants

took

no

position

regarding the remainder of the relief requested by the plaintiff.3

1

Record document numbers 31 and 31-4.

2

Record document numbers 33, motion, and 34, order granting
motion.
3

Defendants Perkins Rowe Associates, L.L.C., Perkins Rowe
Associates II, L.L.C. and Perkins Rowe Block A Condominiums, L.L.C.
(collectively, “Perkins Rowe Defendants”) have not filed an answer
or otherwise made an appearance. An attorney appeared for third
party defendant Joseph T. Spinosa at the scheduling conference, but
Spinosa has not filed an answer or other pleading.
Balhoff
Abbott
Carleton
Shea

The principal difference between the plaintiff’s proposed
protective order and the one proposed by defendant Jones Lang
LaSalle is that the latter includes KeyBank National Association
among

the

Permitted

Recipients

of

Confidential

Information.

KeyBank is the plaintiff in KeyBank National Association v. Perkins
Rowe Associates, LLC, et al, CV 09-497-JJB-SCR (the Foreclosure
Litigation), in which the Perkins Rowe defendants and third party
defendant

Joseph

T.

Spinosa

are

also

defendants.

Moreover,

defendant Jones Lang LaSalle is the Keeper which was nominated by
KeyBank and appointed by the court in the Foreclosure Litigation.
For the reasons stated in the response filed by defendant
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, its proposed protective order is
suited to the needs of this case, avoids possible conflicts with
what

is

permitted

under

the

protective

order

issued

in

the

Foreclosure Litigation, and permits defendant Jones Lang LaSalle
Americas

to

Foreclosure

fully

perform

Litigation.

its

duties

Nothing

in

as
the

the

Keeper

plaintiff’s

in

the

motion

indicates that its confidential business information would not be
adequately protected by the protective order proposed by defendant
Jones Lang LaSalle Americas.
Plaintiff filed under seal with this motion its supporting
memorandum,4 its proposed protective order,5 its Memorandum of

4

Record document number 29-1.

5

Record document number 29-2.
2

Authorities in Support of Motion for Remand to State Court,6 and
Exhibits 2 - 6 to the plaintiff’s motion to remand.7

These have

been reviewed. The memorandum filed in support of this motion, the
proposed protective order, and the Memorandum of Authorities in
Support of Motion for Remand to State Court do not appear to
contain any actual confidential information. The remand memorandum
refers to the exhibits, but the memorandum itself does not include
confidential information from the exhibits.

There is no good

reason for these documents to remain under seal.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order and
Motion for Leave to File Under Seal Its Memorandum and Certain
Exhibits in Support of Its Motion for Remand to State Court is
denied insofar as the plaintiff sought entry of the proposed
protective order submitted with its motion.

The court will issued

defendant Jones Lang LaSalle Americas’ proposed protective order.
Plaintiff’s motion is also denied insofar as the plaintiff
sought

to

file

under

seal

this

motion

and

its

supporting

memorandum,8 the proposed protective order,9 and its Memorandum of
Authorities in Support of Motion for Remand to State Court.10

6

Record document number 29-4.

7

Record document numbers 29-5 through 29-12.

8

Record document numbers 29 and 29-1.

9

Record document number 29-2.

10

Record document number 29-4.
3

If

no party timely appeals this ruling to the district judge,11 the
clerk of court will be directed to unseal these documents.
Plaintiff’s motion is granted insofar as the plaintiff sought
to file under seal
remand.12

Exhibits 2 - 6 to the plaintiff’s motion to

These documents shall remain under seal, subject to the

terms of the protective to be issued.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 3, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11

See Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P.

12

Record document numbers 29-5 – 29-12.
4