Fidelity National Title Insurance Company v. APM Management Service's, LLC et al

Filing 59

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct expedited discovery, (Doc. No. #48 ), is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for leave to file under seal, (Doc. No. #42 ), is GRANTED. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Signed by District Judge John A. Ross on 1/19/2023. (CLT)

Case: 4:22-cv-01391-JAR Doc. #: 59 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 375

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
APM MANAGEMENT SERVICE’S, LLC )
et. al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

Case No. 4:22-cv-01391-JAR

ORDER AND MEMORANDUM
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s third motion for expedited discovery, (Doc.
No. 48), and Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal. (Doc No. 42). This matter concerns
allegations of a fraudulent transfer of $2,258,274.00 from an escrow account Plaintiff owns to
Defendants APM Management Service’s, LLC (“APM”) and Appelbaum. (Doc. No. 30). The
Court previously entered a Temporary Restraining Order in this case freezing the account to
which the funds were diverted (the “Fraudulent Account”). (Doc. No. 14). However, after
conducting limited expedited discovery with nominal Defendant Bank of America (“BoA”),
Plaintiff learned that the majority of the funds had been further divested to other accounts APM
and Appelbaum owned, to accounts of various cryptocurrency companies, or withdrawn. (Doc.
No. 39). Plaintiff therefore requests leave to serve further requests for production related to
these accounts and withdrawals on the identified banks and cryptocurrency companies. (Doc.
No. 48). APM and Appelbaum do not object to this motion. (Doc. No. 55).
Courts in this district “consistently” apply a good cause standard when considering
motions to expedite discovery. Monsanto Co. v. Sauceda, No. 4:10-V-2249 CEJ, 2011 WL

Case: 4:22-cv-01391-JAR Doc. #: 59 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 376

65106, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 7, 2011). Here, as the further “dissipation of the money illegally
taken” from Plaintiff would constitute irreparable harm to Plaintiff’s ability to recover for its
equitable claims, there is good cause to grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct expedited
discovery. Astrove v. Doe, No. 22-cv-80614, 2022 WL 2805345, at *4 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 17, 2022).
Thus, the Court will grant in part and deny in part the motion, permitting Plaintiff to file its
revised requests for production as set forth in (Doc. No. 47).
Plaintiff also requests leave to file its reply to APM’s and Appelbaum’s opposition to its
motion for expedited discovery under seal. (Doc. No. 37). Local Rule 13.05 governs the sealing
of materials filed in civil cases. It requires the proponent of sealing to file a motion for leave to
file under seal describing:
(i) the material or information sought to be filed under seal without disclosing the substance
of the material sought to be kept confidential; (ii) the legal grounds for sealing; and (iii)
the requested duration for the sealing or, if the proponent requests that the material remain
sealed indefinitely, the reasons supporting the request.
E.D. Mo. Local Rule 13.05(A)(4)(a). With the motion for leave to file under seal, the movant is
required to file a complete copy of the subject documents under seal and a memorandum stating
“the specific legal and factual reasons justifying the sealing.” E.D. Mo. 13.05(A)(4)(b). Within
three business days of filing the motion for sealing, the movant must file either a redacted copy
of the subject documents or a memorandum explaining the specific reasons for the failure or
inability to file a redacted document. See E.D. Mo. Local Rule 13.05(A)(4)(c). Whichever option
the moving party chooses, it must make its filing in the public record. Id.
There is a common-law right of access to judicial records of a civil proceeding. See IDT
Corp. v. eBay, 709 F.3d 1220, 1222 (8th Cir. 2013). However, the district court has “supervisory
control” over the records in a case before it, and the decision to permit a filing under seal is “best
left to the sound discretion of” that court. Flynt v. Lombardi, 885 F.3d 508, 511 (8th Cir.
2

Case: 4:22-cv-01391-JAR Doc. #: 59 Filed: 01/19/23 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 377

2018)(citing Webster Groves Sch. Dist. v. Pulitzer Publ’g Co., 898 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir.
1990)). The party seeking to file a pleading or document under seal may therefore overcome the
presumption in favor of public access to judicial records if that party provides “compelling
reasons” for doing so; the protection of trade secrets is one such compelling reason. See In re
Neal, 461 F.3d 1048, 1053 (8th Cir. 2006)(internal citations omitted); see also CAA Sports LLC
v. Dogra, No. 4:18-cv-01887-SNLJ, 2018 WL 6696622, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 20, 2018)(listing
cases). As Plaintiff seeks to protect confidential banking information in its memorandum of
support for its motion for entry of a temporary restraining order, the Court finds good cause for
Plaintiff to file the memorandum under seal.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct expedited
discovery, (Doc. No. 48), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file under seal, (Doc.
No. 42), is GRANTED.
Dated this 19th day of January, 2023.

_________________________________
JOHN A. ROSS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3