Federal Trade Commission v. AMG Services, Inc. et al

Filing 575

ORDER Granting 574 Plaintiff's Motion to Seal 573 Reply to Response to Motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 04/07/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 574 Filed 04/07/14 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
District of Nevada
BLAINE T. WELSH
Assistant United States Attorney
Nevada Bar. No. 4790
333 Las Vegas Blvd. South, Suite 5000
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
Phone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
DAVID SHONKA
Principal Deputy General Counsel
NIKHIL SINGHVI
JASON D. SCHALL
HELEN P. WONG
IOANA RUSU
LaSHAWN M. JOHNSON
COURTNEY A. ESTEP
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailstop NJ-3158
Washington, D.C. 20580
Phone: [phone] (Singhvi)
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

18
19
20

22

v.
AMG Services, Inc. et al.,

24
25
26

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO FILE
REPLY MEMORANDUM
UNDER SEAL

Plaintiff,

21

23

Case No. 2:12-cv-536

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,

Defendants, and
Park 269 LLC, et al.,
Relief Defendants.

27
1

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 574 Filed 04/07/14 Page 2 of 5

1

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) hereby moves this Court for an Order granting the

2

FTC leave to file under seal its reply memorandum (Docket No. 573) in support of motion to unseal

3

summary judgment memoranda and exhibits (Docket No. 560). The Court has approved the FTC’s

4

similar request to provisionally file materials under seal with respect to the FTC’s summary judgment

5

filings. (See Docket Nos. 476, 506, 525, 562, 567.) In support of this motion, the FTC states as follows:

6

1.

On January 11, 2013, this Court entered an amended protective order (Docket No. 308),

7

permitting parties to designate documents and testimony as confidential, and to submit such information to

8

the Court under seal.

9

2.

On September 30, 2013, the FTC filed a motion for summary judgment. (Docket No. 454.)

10

With the Court’s permission (Docket No. 476), the FTC filed under seal its memorandum (Docket No.

11

456), and exhibits (Docket No. 455) in support thereof.

12

3.

On December 3, 2013, the FTC filed an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

13

judgment (Docket No. 491), and exhibits in support thereof (Docket Nos. 491-1, 491-2, 491-3, 491-4,

14

491-5, 491-6, 491-7, 491-8). The FTC filed these documents under seal with the Court’s permission.

15

(Docket No. 506.)

16

4.

On December 20, 2013, the FTC filed a reply in support of its motion for summary

17

judgment (the “Reply”), as well as an appendix and declaration with accompanying exhibits (Docket No.

18

514 et seq.). These documents were filed under seal with the Court’s permission. (Docket No. 525.)

19

5.

On March 2, 2014, the FTC filed an opposition to Defendants’ objection to the magistrate

20

judge’s January 28, 2014 report and recommendation (Docket No. 556), and on March 3, 2014, the FTC

21

filed a response to Defendants’ objection to the magistrate judge’s January 28, 2014 evidentiary rulings

22

(Docket No. 557.) These documents were filed under seal with the Court’s permission. (Docket No. 562.)

23
24
25

6.

The FTC sought leave to file these documents under seal out of an abundance of caution,

and due to the breadth of the Defendants’ confidential designations.
7.

On March 11, 2014, the FTC filed a motion seeking to unseal and file redacted memoranda

26

and exhibits in connection with its summary judgment motions and briefings. (Docket No. 560.) In its

27

motion to unseal, the FTC proposed numerous redactions to its summary judgment memoranda and
2

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 574 Filed 04/07/14 Page 3 of 5

1

exhibits. (Docket No. 561, 561-1, et seq.) The FTC sought to have those proposed redactions

2

provisionally filed under seal because the materials are currently wholly under seal by order of the Court

3

and because the FTC’s proposal is in large part contested by Defendants. (Docket No. 563.) The Court

4

granted the FTC’s motion to file its exhibits to the unseal motion under seal. (Docket No. 567.)

5

8.

On April 7, 2014, the FTC filed a reply memorandum in support of its motion to unseal.

6

(Docket No. 573.) Portions of the FTC’s reply memorandum quote from or paraphrase portions of

7

documents that Defendants have designated as confidential and that Defendants have argued should

8

remain sealed.

9

9.

The FTC does not contend that any of the information in its reply memorandum should be

10

sealed, and contends further that Defendants have not presented compelling reasons to maintain such

11

information under seal. The FTC seeks leave of the Court to file its reply memorandum under seal solely

12

to avoid publication of the disputed materials until the Court resolves the parties’ confidentiality dispute.

13
14

WHEREFORE, the FTC respectfully requests leave of the Court to file under seal its reply memorandum

15

(Docket No. 573) in support of motion to unseal.

16

Dated: April 7, 2014

17
18
19
20
21
22

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Ioana Rusu
Nikhil Singhvi
Jason D. Schall
Helen P. Wong
Ioana Rusu
LaShawn M. Johnson
Courtney A. Estep
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Federal Trade Commission

23
IT IS SO ORDERED:
24
25

________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27

4-7-2014
DATED: ________________________
3

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 574 Filed 04/07/14 Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

1

3

I, Ioana Rusu, certify that, as indicated below, all parties were served by electronic case filing
with PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY MEMORANDUM UNDER
SEAL. All parties were served by email with Plaintiff’s reply memorandum.

4

Dated: April 7, 2014

2

/s/Ioana Rusu
Ioana Rusu

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

Joshua M. Dickey ([e-mail])
Attorney for Red Cedar Services, Inc. dba 500FastCash; SFS, Inc. dba OneClickCash
Conly J. Schulte ([e-mail])
Francis J. Nyhan ([e-mail])
Nicole Ducheneaux ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Defendants AMG Services, Inc.; Red Cedar Services, Inc. dba 500FastCash; SFS,
Inc. dba OneClickCash; MNE Services, Inc. dba Tribal Financial Services, Ameriloan,
UnitedCashLoans, USFastCash
David J. Merrill ([e-mail])
Debra K. Lefler ([e-mail])
Bradley Weidenhammer ([e-mail])
Charles Kalil ([e-mail])
Richard Howell ([e-mail])
Peter J. Wozniak ([e-mail])
Andrew A. Kassof ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Defendants AMG Services, Inc. and MNE Services, Inc. dba Tribal Financial
Services, Ameriloan, UnitedCashLoans, USFastCash
Von S. Heinz ([e-mail])
Darren J. Lemieux ([e-mail])
E. Leif Reid ([e-mail])
Jeffrey D. Morris ([e-mail])
Ryan C. Hudson ([e-mail])
Nick J. Kurt ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Defendants AMG Capital Management, LLC; Level 5 Motorsports, LLC;
LeadFlash Consulting, LLC; Black Creek Capital Corporation; Broadmoor Capital Partners,
LLC; Scott A. Tucker; Blaine A. Tucker

23
24
25
26
27
1

Case 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF Document 574 Filed 04/07/14 Page 5 of 5

1
2
3

L. Christopher Rose ([e-mail])
Michael R. Ernst ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Defendants The Muir Law Firm, LLC and Timothy J. Muir
Jay Young ([e-mail])
Attorney for Defendant for Robert D. Campbell

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

Paul C. Ray ([e-mail])
Alyssa D. Campbell (acampbell@laic- law.com)
Attorneys for Defendant Troy L. Littleaxe
Patrick J. Reilly ([e-mail])
Linda C. McFee ([e-mail])
Robert Peter Smith ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Relief Defendants Kim C. Tucker and Park 269 LLC
Brian R. Reeve ([e-mail])
Nathan F. Garrett ([e-mail])
Whitney P. Strack ([e-mail])
Attorneys for Defendant Don E. Brady

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2