Corbello v. DeVito

Filing 659

ORDER Granting 615 Motion to Seal Certain Exhibits to Response Defendant Jersey Boys Records Limited Partnership's Motion for Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion to Compel Jurisdictional Discovery. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/27/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1 Gregory H. Guillot
[e-mail]
2 Admitted Pro Hac Vice
GREGORY H. GUILLOT, P.C.
3 13455 Noel Road, Suite 1000
Dallas, TX 75240
4 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
5
John L. Krieger, (Nevada Bar No. 6023)
6 [e-mail]
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
7 3993 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 600
Las Vegas, NV 89169
8 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
9
George L. Paul
10 [e-mail]
Admitted Pro Hac Vice
11 Robert H. McKirgan,
[e-mail]
12 Admitted Pro Hac Vice
LEWIS AND ROCA LLP
13 40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900
Phoenix, AZ 85004
14 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
16 DONNA CORBELLO
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

18

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

19 DONNA CORBELLO, an individual,
Case No. 2:08-cv-00867-RCJ-PAL
20
21

Plaintiff,
vs.

22 THOMAS GAETANO DEVITO, an
individual, et al.,
23
Defendants.
24
25

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE
TO FILE UNDER SEAL CERTAIN
EXHIBITS TO HER RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT JERSEY BOYS
RECORDS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSSMOTION TO COMPEL
JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY

26
27

Plaintiff Donna Corbello, by her attorneys, and pursuant to the Stipulated Protective

28 Order (Doc. 94) entered into by the parties, and the Court’s Protective Order Governing

1 Confidentiality of Documents entered on January 5, 2009 (“Order Regarding Sealing
2 Requirements”) (Doc. 95), herewith requests leave to file certain documents under seal as
3 exhibits to Plaintiff’s Response to Jersey Boys Records Limited Partnership’s Motion for
4 Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion to Compel Responses to Jurisdictional Discovery
5 (“Response: Cross-Motion to Compel”).
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

6
7

Pursuant to her obligations under the Stipulated Protective Order and Order Regarding

8 Sealing Requirements, Plaintiff seeks an order permitting her to file the following documents
9 under seal, which were produced by Defendants Frankie Valli, Robert J. Gaudio, Marshall
10 Brickman, Eric S. Elice, DSHT, Inc., Dodger Theatricals, Inc., and/or JB Viva Vegas, LP (the
11 “New Defendants”), and/or by third party BASE Las Vegas Jersey Boys, and marked
12 “CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL” thereby, which she intends to attach as
13 exhibits to her Response: Cross-Motion to Compel:
14

x

15
16

JB-0025278 through JB-0025282 consisting of financial information produced by
New Defendants.

x

BASE 00001 through BASE 00030 consisting of the letter agreement between

17

BASE Las Vegas Jersey Boys (BASE Entertainment) and Jersey Boys Broadway

18

LP.

19

Plaintiff further seeks an order permitting her to file the following court documents under

20 seal which support her Response: Cross-Motion to Compel but contain, in part, information
21 marked “Highly Confidential” by third party BASE Entertainment:
22

x

Selected text on page 5 of Plaintiff's Response to Jersey Boys Records Limited

23

Partnership’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to

24

Compel Responses to Jurisdictional Discovery which restates information

25

contained in the letter agreement between BASE Entertainment and Jersey Boys

26

Broadway LP.

27
28

x

Selected text in Paragraph 11 of Rule 56(D) Declaration of John L. Krieger in
Support of Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant Jersey Boys Records Limited
2

2483327.1

1

Partnership’s Motion for Summary Judgment and Plaintiff’s Cross-Motion to

2

Compel Jurisdictional Discovery which restates information contained in the

3

letter agreement between BASE Entertainment and Jersey Boys Broadway LP.

4 I.

ARGUMENT

5

There is an exception to the normal presumption of access to judicial records, for “sealed

6 discovery document[s] [attached] to a non-dispositive motion,” such that “the usual presumption
7 of the public’s right of access is rebutted.” Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d
8 1172, 1179-1180 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Phillips v. General Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213
9 (9th Cir. 2002)). The public has less of a need for access to court records attached only to non10 dispositive motions because those documents are often “‘unrelated, or only tangentially related,
11 to the underlying cause of action.’” Id. (quoting Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 33,
12 104 S. Ct. 2199, 81 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1984)). Moreover, “public policies that support the right of
13 access to dispositive motions, and related materials, do not apply with equal force to non14 dispositive materials.” Id. (citing Phillips, 307 F.3d at 1213). Finally, when a district court
15 grants a protective order to seal documents during discovery, “it already has determined that
16 ‘good cause’ exists to protect this information from being disclosed to the public by balancing
17 the needs for discovery against the need for confidentiality.” Id. Accordingly, “good cause”
18 exists for the filing of the foregoing documents under seal.
19
20 the

Pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order herein, Plaintiff has an obligation to maintain
confidentiality

of

any

document

marked

“CONFIDENTIAL”

or

“HIGHLY

21 CONFIDENTIAL” by an opposing party, and the documents identified above were so marked by
22 the New Defendants and by BASE Las Vegas Jersey Boys. Accordingly, Plaintiff may not file
23 the documents with the Court without obtaining an Order and/or filing them under seal.
24 Whereas, Plaintiff’s Response: Cross-Motion to Compel is not a dispositive motion, the filing of
25 these documents under seal falls within the exception to the general presumption of public access
26 carved out by the courts of this Circuit for documents attached to non-dispositive motions.
27 Accordingly, leave to file the subject documents under seal should be granted.
28 / / /
3

2483327.1

1 II.

CONCLUSION

2

IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that her present motion be

3 granted.
4

Dated: October 11, 2011

5

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

6
/s/ John L. Krieger
Gregory H. Guillot
George L. Paul
John L. Krieger
Robert H. McKirgan
Attorneys for Plaintiff, Donna Corbello

7
8
9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED:

13
14
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUD
UNITED STAJOS MAGISTRATE JUDGE
E
RN E
ROBERT C. JONES
ROBERT CATE NES
O
ON
DATED:
Dated: This 27th day of October, 201
27th y October, 2011.
27th
e

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4

2483327.1

1
2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), I certify that on October 11, 2011, I electronically filed

3 the foregoing motion and this certificate of service with the clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF
4 system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
5
6
7
8
9
10

Daniel M. Mayeda, Esq.
Leopold, Petrich & Smith, P.C.
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3110
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3274
David S. Korzenik, Esq.
Miller Korzenik Sommers LLP
488 Madison Avenue, Suite 1120
New York, NY 10022-5702

13

Samuel S. Lionel, Esq.
Todd Kennedy, Esq.
Lionel Sawyer & Collins
300 S. 4th Street, Suite 1700
Las Vegas, NV 89101

14

Attorneys for the Non-DeVito Defendants

11
12

15
16
17
18
19
20

L. Bradley Hancock, Esq.
Christopher B. Payne, Esq.
Greenberg Traurig LLP
1000 Louisiana, Suite 1700
Houston, TX 77002
Booker T. Evans, Jr., Esq.
Greenberg Traurig LLP
2375 East Camelback Road, Suite 700
Phoenix, AZ 85016

21
22
23

Eric W. Swanis, Esq.
Greenberg Traurig, LLP
3773 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 500 North
Las Vegas, NV 89169

24
Attorneys for Defendant Thomas Gaetano DeVito
25
26

Debbie Robbins

27
28
5

2483327.1