Corbello v. DeVito

Filing 349

ORDER Granting 348 Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits as to 347 MOTION for Magistrate Judge to Reconsider Magistrate Judge Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/30/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ASB)

Download PDF
Corbello v. DeVito Doc. 349 1 Gregory H. Guillot 2 Admitted Pro Hac Vice GREGORY H. GUILLOT, P.C. 3 13455 Noel Road, Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75240 4 Telephone: (972) 774-4560 Facsimile: (214) 515-0411 5 John L. Krieger, (Nevada Bar No. 6023) 6 LEWIS AND ROCA LLP 7 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600 Las Vegas, NV 89169 8 Telephone: (702) 949-8200 Facsimile: (702) 949-8389 9 George L. Paul 10 Admitted Pro Hac Vice 11 Robert H. McKirgan, 12 Admitted Pro Hac Vice LEWIS AND ROCA LLP 13 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, AZ 85004 14 Telephone: (602) 262-5326 Facsimile: (602) 734-3857 15 Attorneys for Plaintiff, 16 DONNA CORBELLO 17 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA Case No. 2:08-cv-00867-RCJ-PAL PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE CERTAIN EXHIBITS ATTACHED TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THE NOVEMBER 12, 2010 ORDER (DOC. 345) UNDER SEAL 19 DONNA CORBELLO, an individual, 20 21 vs. Plaintiff, 22 THOMAS GAETANO DEVITO, an individual, et al., 23 Defendants. 24 25 Plaintiff Donna Corbello, by her attorneys, and pursuant to the Stipulated Protective 26 Order (Doc. 94) entered into by the parties, and the Court's Protective Order Governing 27 Confidentiality of Documents entered on January 5, 2009 ("Order Regarding Sealing 28 Requirements") (Doc. 95), herewith requests leave to file certain documents under seal as 1 exhibits to her motion seeking reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's November 12, 2010 2 Order (Doc. 345). 3 4 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES Pursuant to her obligations under the Stipulated Protective Order and Order Regarding 5 Sealing Requirements, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting her to file the following documents 6 under seal, which were produced by Defendants Frankie Valli, Robert J. Gaudio, Marshall 7 Brickman, Eric S. Elice, DSHT, Inc., Dodger Theatricals, Inc., and/or JB Viva Vegas, LP (the 8 "New Defendants"), and/or by third parties GK Films, Inc., Charles Alexander, and Kevin 9 Kinsella (collectively, the "Third Parties"), and marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY 10 CONFIDENTIAL" thereby, and which she intends to attach as exhibits to her motion seeking 11 reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's November 12, 2010 Order: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JB-0041413, JB-0041673, JB-0041752, JB-0045869, consisting of excerpts from undated Jersey Boys scripts; JB-0038554, GKF 000002 through GKF 000006, GKF 000012-000013 & GKF 000038-000040, consisting of excerpts from documents regarding possible Jersey Boys films; JB-0027245, JB-0027257, JB-0027275, JB-0027280, JB-0023325, JB-0027448, JB-0027467 through JB-0027468, JB-0027474, JB-0027505, JB-0027576, JB0027590 through JB-0027591, JB-0027629, JB-0033051-0033053, JB-00330550033057, JB-0033059-0033067, JB-0033069 through JB-0033071, JB-0033073, JB-0033080, JB-0033082 through JB-0033083, JB-0033085, JB-0033087, and JB-0033150 consisting of copies of selected email exchanges produced by Defendants Brickman and Elice between Defendant Des McAnuff and various other New Defendants dated from approximately 2004 through 2006; JB-0027244, JB-0027252, JB-0027265, JB-0027278 through JB-0027279, JB0027284, JB-0027290 through JB-0027291, JB-0027293, JB-0027310, JB0027314, JB-0027320 through JB-0027321, JB-0027326, JB-0027329, JB0027336, JB-0027343, JB-0027358, JB-0027369, JB-0027373, JB-0027375, JB2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 0027382, JB-0027385, JB-0027403, JB-0027431, JB-0027439, JB-0027453, JB0027456, JB-0027459, JB-0027461, JB-0027469, JB-0027588, JB-0027622, JB0027625, JB-0027627, JB-0027647, and JB-0027683, consisting of copies of selected email correspondence produced by Defendants Brickman and Elice where the email was produced, but the corresponding and referenced attachment was not produced; KINSELLA-007310, KINSELLA-007650, and KINSELLA-007654 consisting of excerpts from the Jersey Boys Broadway Limited Partnership Agreement and the JB Viva Vegas LP Agreement; JB-0027248, JB-0027250, JB-0027260 through JB-0027261, JB-0027264, JB0027277, JB-0027287, JB-0027306, JB-0027323, JB-0027410, JB-0027540, JB0027553, JB-0027266 through JB-0027268, and JB-0033185 consisting of copies of selected email correspondence produced by Defendants Brickman and Elice addressing the development of Jersey Boys; ALEX-000134 and JB-0054382 consisting of copies of selected email correspondence produced by Mr. Charles Alexander (in response to a subpoena duces tecum and subject to the Order Regarding Sealing Requirements) and Defendant Elice; JB-0027301, JB-0055526 through JB-0055528, and JB-0069866 consisting of copies of documents produced by Defendants Brickman and Elice regarding issues related to the Jersey Boys script; JB-0027286, JB-0027292, JB-0027322, JB-0027408, JB-0027434, JB-0027464, JB-0027556, JB-0027670, and JB-0027668 consisting of copies of email correspondence produced by Defendant Brickman referring to the use of MovieMagic® screenwriter software; JB-0027295, JB-0027334 through JB-0027335, and JB-0027602 consisting of copies of email correspondence produced by Defendant Brickman related to 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 I. 12 Defendants Brickman's and Elice's knowledge of the Work in question and coauthorship of the same; JB-0027395, JB-0027538, JB-0057092, JB-0059796, JB-0067603, and JB0069802 consisting of selected documents produced by Defendants Brickman and Elice demonstrating that cut off of January 2007 would deprive Plaintiff of valuable information relevant to her claims; and ALEX-000012 through ALEX-000016 consisting of email correspondence produced by Mr. Alexander pursuant to subpoena and subject to the Order Regarding Sealing Requirements addressing his limited communication with Plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Greg Guillot. ARGUMENT There is an exception to the normal presumption of access to judicial records, for "sealed 13 discovery document[s] [attached] to a non-dispositive motion," such that "the usual presumption 14 of the public's right of access is rebutted." Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 15 1172, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213 16 (9th Cir. 2002)). The public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non17 dispositive motions because those documents are often "`unrelated, or only tangentially related, 18 to the underlying cause of action.'" Id. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33, 19 104 S. Ct. 2199, 81 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1984)). Moreover, "public policies that support the right of 20 access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non21 dispositive materials." Id. (citing Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213). Finally, when a district court 22 grants a protective order to seal documents during discovery, "it already has determined that 23 `good cause' exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing 24 the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality." Id. Accordingly, "good cause" 25 exists for the filing of the foregoing documents under seal. 26 27 the Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order herein, Plaintiff has an obligation to maintain confidentiality of any document marked "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY 28 CONFIDENTIAL" by either an opposing party or a third party who has produced documents 4 1 subject to a subpoena duces tecum, and the documents identified above were so marked by the 2 New Defendants and the Third Parties, who were served with the Stipulated Protective Order. 3 Accordingly, Plaintiff may not file the documents with the Court without obtaining an Order 4 and/or filing them under seal. Whereas, Plaintiff's motion for reconsideration is not a dispositive 5 motion, the filing of these documents under seal falls within the exception to the general 6 presumption of public access carved out by the courts of this Circuit for documents attached to 7 non-dispositive motions. Accordingly, leave to file the subject documents under seal should be 8 granted. 9 II. 10 CONCLUSION IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that her Motion for Leave to 11 File Certain Exhibits to Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the November 12, 2010 Order 12 (Doc. 345) Under Seal be granted. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DATED: November 30, 2010 5 IT IS SO ORDERED: /s/John L. Krieger Gregory H. Guillot George L. Paul John L. Krieger Robert H. McKirgan Attorneys for Plaintiff, Donna Corbello Dated: November 29, 2010 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: 1 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I, Gregory H. Guillot, hereby certify that on November 3 29, 2010, I electronically filed the foregoing document and this Certificate of Service with the 4 Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notifications of such filing to the 5 following: 6 L. Bradley Hancock Christopher B. Payne 7 Greenberg Traurig, LLP 1000 Louisiana 8 Suite 1800 Houston, TX 77002 9 Booker T. Evans, Jr. 10 Greenburg Traurig, LLP 2375 East Camelback Road 11 Suite 700 Phoenix, AZ 85016 12 Alma Chao 13 Greenburg Traurig, LLP 3773 Howard Hughes Parkway 14 Suite 500 North Las Vegas, Nevada 89169 15 Attorneys for Thomas Gaetano DeVito 16 17 Daniel M. Mayeda LEOPOLD, PETRICH & SMITH, P.C. 18 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3110 Los Angeles, California 90067-3274 19 David S. Korzenik 20 MILLER KORZENIK SOMMERS LLP 488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120 21 New York, New York 10022-5702 22 Samuel S. Lionel Todd Kennedy 23 LIONEL, SAWYER & COLLINS 300 So. 4th Street #1700 24 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 25 Attorneys for Defendants Frankie Valli, Robert J. Gaudio, Marshall Brickman, Eric S. Elice, Des McAnuff, DSHT, Inc., and Dodger Theatricals, Ltd. 26 27 28 6 /s/Gregory H. Guillot

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?