Bussing v. Legent Clearing, LLC et al

Filing 41

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: --Granting #33 Plaintiff's Motion to Amend to correct the pleadings;--Denying as moot plaintiff's motions to restrict, filings #29 and #35 ; --Granting in part #39 , defendant's Motion to Restrict; and granting #20 Defendant's Motion to Restrict. The plaintiff may file a redacted version of the Second Amended Complaint no later than October 26, 2012. --Granting #37 , Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to File Revised Brief, (filing #38 ). Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiffs Revised Brief in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss no later than October 26, 2012. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Cheryl R. Zwart. (copy mailed to plaintiff by CRZ's chambers)(Zwart, Cheryl)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
JULIE A. BUSSING,
Plaintiff,
v.
LEGENT CLEARING, LLC, COR
SECURITIES HOLDINGS, Inc.,
CARLOS P. SALAS, in his Official
Capacities, and CHRISTOPHER L.
FRANKEL, in his Official
Capacities,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

8:12CV238

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on numerous Motions filed by the parties
relating to the restriction of Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, along with other
issues.
The court first addresses Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint and Correct
Pleadings. (Filing No. 33.) In her Motion to Amend, Plaintiff seeks to amend her
Complaint a second time “to reflect the corporate name change of Defendant Legent
Clearing, LLC to its new name of COR Clearing, LLC.” (Id. at CM/ECF p. 1.)
Plaintiff also seeks to clarify that the two individual Defendants, Carlos P. Salas and
Christopher L. Frankel, are sued in their individual capacities rather than their official
capacities. (Id.) Defendants do not object to Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend. (Filing
No. 39 at CM/ECF p. 2.) As such, the Motion is granted.
The parties have also filed four separate Motions relating to the restriction of
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and Second Amended Complaint. (Filing Nos. 20,
29, 35, and 39.) Plaintiff filed her original Complaint, along with over 100 pages of
attachments, on July 9, 2012. (Filing No. 1.) Defendants thereafter sought to restrict

the content of the Complaint and the attachments from the public because the
documents contained “non-public, confidential, privileged, proprietary and/or trade
secret information.” (Filing No. 5 at CM/ECF p. 2.) The court provisionally
restricted the Complaint and attachments on July 11, 2012. (Filing No. 9.) However,
the court permitted Plaintiff the opportunity to object to the provisional restriction of
the documents. (Id.)
Rather than object to the provisional restriction, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint. (Filing No. 19.) The Amended Complaint was significantly shorter and
less detailed than the original. Additionally, Plaintiff attached only one document,
the “Employment Agreement” between Plaintiff and Defendant Legent Clearing, LLC
(now COR Clearing, LLC). (Id. at CM/ECF pp. 21-31.) Defendants again sought
restriction of the Complaint and attachment, arguing that the Amended Complaint
was “substantially similar” to the original, and that complete restriction of the entire
document and attachment was therefore warranted. (Filing No. 20.) Plaintiff
opposed the Motion to Restrict. (Filing No. 22.) The court granted provisional
restriction, pending ruling on Defendants’ Motion. (Filing No. 25.)1 Defendants also
seek to restrict the Second Amended Complaint, which is identical to the Amended
Complaint except for the name of one Defendant and the capacity in which the
individuals are sued. (Filing No. 39.)
The court has carefully reviewed the Amended Complaint and Second
Amended Complaint, and the attached “Employment Agreement.” (Filing Nos. 19
and 34.) In accordance with the court’s Local Rules, the Second Amended Complaint
1

In their Motion to Restrict Access to Amended Complaint, Defendants
repeatedly assert that the court restricted the original Complaint and attachments in
their entirety, without acknowledging that the restriction was provisional and subject
to later objections and/or limitations. (Filing No. 20.) Defendants fail to
acknowledge this fact for a second time in their Motion to Restrict Access to Second
Amended Complaint. (Filing No. 39.)
2

supersedes the Complaint and the Amended Complaint. Further, the court agrees
with Defendants that the Second Amended Complaint contains some non-public,
sensitive information. Noting Plaintiff’s objections to restriction of the entire
document, the court finds that the Second Amended Complaint should be restricted
in accordance with NeCivR 5.0.3(c)(3). However, while the Second Amended
Complaint (filing no. 19) shall remain restricted in its entirety, Plaintiff may file a
redacted version of the Second Amended Complaint. If Plaintiff does so, the redacted
version shall remove or otherwise obscure paragraphs 22-28 and 36-50 from the
Second Amended Complaint.2 The redacted version of the Second Amended
Complaint shall not be restricted from public access in any way. Additionally, there
is nothing sensitive or confidential contained in the attached “Employment
Agreement.” As such, the attachment need not be restricted at all.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.
Defendants’ Motion to Restrict (filing no. 20) is granted. The Amended
Complaint shall remain restricted in its entirety.
2.
Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend (filing no. 33) is granted. The Clerk of the
court is directed to replace Defendant Legent Clearing, LLC with COR Clearing, LLC
and is directed to note on the docket sheet that the remaining Defendants are sued in
their individual capacities.
3.

Defendants’ Motion to Restrict (filing no. 39) is granted in part.

4.

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (filing no. 34) shall remain

2

Plaintiff may simply remove the text of these paragraphs in the electronic
version of the Second Amended Complaint and replace it with the word “redacted,”
or may “black out” the paragraphs manually. The court will not undertake redaction
on Plaintiff’s behalf.
3

restricted in its entirety.
5.
Plaintiff may file a redacted version of the Second Amended Complaint
no later than October 26, 2012. If Plaintiff does so, the redacted version shall remove
or otherwise obscure paragraphs 22-28 and 36-50 from the Second Amended
Complaint. No other redactions to the Second Amended Complaint or the attachment
are required. The redacted version of the Second Amended Complaint shall not be
restricted.
6.

Plaintiff’s Motions to Restrict (filing nos. 29 and 35) are denied as moot.

7.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Revised Brief (filing no. 37) is
granted. Defendants may file a reply to Plaintiff’s Revised Brief in Opposition to
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (filing no. 38) no later than October 26, 2012.
DATED this 18th day of October, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Cheryl R. Zwart
United States Magistrate Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The
U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend,
approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on
their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties
or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or
functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.
4