Home Gambling Network, Inc., etal VS Chris Piche, etal

Filing 356

ORDER Denying 349 Motion to Compel Compliance with 233 Court's Protective Order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs' compliance with paragraph 4 of 233 Protective Order is stayed pending appeal. Plaintiffs shall complete thereq uirements of paragraph 4 either: (1) thirty days after all appeals of this courts Judgment 334 have been exhausted and the Judgment 334 is affirmed, or (2) if the Judgment 334 is reversed and the case is remanded, thirty days after the conclusion of all further proceedings, including additional appeals, if any. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 1/3/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6
7

HOME GAMBLING NETWORK, INC., et al.,

8
9
10

Plaintiffs,

2:05-cv-00610-DAE-VCF
ORDER

vs.
CHRIS PICHE, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12
13
14

Before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Compel Compliance with Court’s Protective Order
(#233)(#349). Plaintiffs filed a response (#354), and Defendants filed a reply (#355).

15

On September 30, 2013, The Honorable David A. Ezra, District Judge, entered an Order (#333)

16

granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#312) and denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Defer

17

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#323). Judgment was entered accordingly in favor of

18

defendants on that same day (#334). On October 30, 2013, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal from the

19

Judgment (#342).

20

Defendants now seek enforcement of paragraph 4 of the Protective Order for CWC Defendants’

21

Database (#233) entered by the Honorable Lawrence R. Leavitt, Magistrate Judge. That paragraph

22

requires:

23
24
25

4. All copies of the Database, and reports and information generated from the Database,
shall be returned with the originally produced Database to defendants' counsel, within
thirty (30) days, after Judgment in this action is entered. If any of the information or
reports gathered or generated from the Database were stored electronically, that
information and those reports shall be deleted irrecoverably from the electronic storage

1
2

device, and an affidavit from the person who deletes the information and an affidavit of
plaintiffs' counsel regarding the sufficiency of the deletion shall also be served on
defendants' counsel within thirty (30) days after Judgment in this action is entered.

3

In effect, Plaintiff’s response to defendant’s motion requests a stay of the enforcement of this

4

paragraph. Plaintiff argues, “The return of the evidence subject to the Court’s protective order can abide

5

the appeal, and once the case finally concludes, the information will be returned.” (#354, p. 2 of 13,

6

lines 7-9. Emphasis original.)

7

Although an appeal has been filed, this court retains jurisdiction during the pendency of that

8

appeal to act to preserve the status quo.

9

International Ass’n Local 200, AFL-CIO, 610 F.3d 483 (9th Cir. 2010). The Protective Order at issue

10

(#233) is not implicated in the appeal and this court has inherent power to modify the Protective Order

11

to continue the status quo until the dispute has been finally resolved. 11 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.

12

Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2904 (3d ed. 2012).

Small v. Operative Plasterers’ and Cement Masons’

13

The court will consider the following factors: (1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong

14

showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured

15

by enforcement of paragraph 4; (3) whether staying enforcement of paragraph 4 will substantially injure

16

the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.

17

While likelihood of success on the merits appears problematic, all three other factors weigh in

18

favor of a stay. There is no evidence that in the years that have elapsed since the information at issue

19

was produced that plaintiffs have done anything to violate the protective order. Therefore, delaying

20

compliance with paragraph 4 will not substantially injure defendants or any other parties interested in

21

this case.

22

together with their work product and then the appellate court’s ruling vacated the current judgment of

23

this court. The public interest is served by preserving the opportunity of a fair trial, should the matter be

24

reversed and remanded.

Plaintiff would be irreparably harmed if they gave up custody of the evidence at issue

25
2

1

Accordingly,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Compel Compliance with Court’s Protective

3

Order (#349) is DENIED.

4

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ compliance with paragraph 4 of the Protective

5

Order for CWC Defendants’ Database (#233) is stayed pending appeal. Plaintiffs shall complete the

6

requirements of paragraph 4 either: (1) thirty days after all appeals of this court’s Judgment (#334) have

7

been exhausted and the Judgment (#334) is affirmed, or (2) if the Judgment (#334)is reversed and the

8

case is remanded, thirty days after the conclusion of all further proceedings, including additional

9

appeals, if any.

10

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2014.
_________________________
CAM FERENBACH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3