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

Filing 832

ORDER that 828 Motion to Extend Time to File Sealed Motion to Unseal is GRANTED. Motion due by 9/21/2015. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 7/20/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

Victoria W. Ni
Public Justice, P.C.
555 12th Street, Suite 1230
Oakland, CA 94607
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

8

Craig Friedberg
Law Offices of Craig Friedberg, Esq.
4760 South Pecos Road, Suite 103
Las Vegas, NV 89121
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
[e-mail]

9

Attorneys for Intervenor Americans for Financial Reform

6
7

10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
12
13
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION,
14
Plaintiff,
15
vs.
16
AMG SERVICES, INC., et al.,
17
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 2:12-cv-00536-GMN-VCF
UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
SEALED MOTION TO UNSEAL
[Second Request]

18
Intervenor Americans for Financial Reform ("AFR"), by and through counsel,
19
hereby submits the following unopposed motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
20
Procedure 6(b), for an extension of time for AFR to file a Sealed Motion to Unseal as
21
directed by the Order of the Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 704) and this Court's affirmance
22
(Dkt. 824), denying AFR's motion for reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge's Order
23
on AFR's Motions to Intervene and Unseal. This is AFR's second request for an
24
extension of time with respect to this motion.
25

Dated this 13th day of July 2015.

26
Public Justice, P.C.
27
28

/s/ Victoria Ni
VICTORIA W. NI
Attorneys for Intervenor
Americans for Financial Reform

1
2

POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits a party to request an

3

extension of time when good cause exists. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b); see also LR 6-1. For the

4

following reasons good cause exists to extend AFR's deadline to file a new Sealed Motion

5

to Unseal. AFR respectfully requests an extension of 60 days, requiring it to file this

6

motion on or before September 21, 2015:

7

1.

On November 13, 2014, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach ruled on AFR's

8

Motion to Intervene (Dkt. 668) and Motion to Unseal (Dkt. 669). The Magistrate Judge

9

granted AFR intervenor status, but denied AFR's Motion to Unseal as unripe. Dkt. 704.

10

The Magistrate Judge determined that AFR could not challenge the court's sealing

11

orders without having access to the sealed records. Id. at 10. The Judge ordered AFR to

12

comply with the court's existing protective orders-not to distribute any sealed

13

documents or their contents to the public-and ordered that all sealed documents made

14

available to AFR would be "for attorneys' eyes only." Id. at 11. The Judge further

15

specified that "only Counsel admitted to practice in this action for AFR and NO OTHER

16

PERSON OR ENTITY whether or not acting on behalf of, or affiliated with, AFR may

17

view the court's sealed filings in this matter." Id. At 12. In a footnote, the Judge

18

specified that only Sarah Belton and Craig Friedberg, as the only attorneys then

19

admitted to practice and representing AFR, could view sealed documents filed in this

20

case. See id. at 12 n.6. Finally, the Magistrate Judge gave AFR until January 12, 2015, to

21

file a new Sealed Motion to Unseal, after it had met and conferred with counsel for the

22

parties in accordance with its Order. See id. at 12.

23

2.

On November 26, 2014, AFR filed Objections to the Magistrate Judge's

24

Order challenging the Magistrate Judge's conclusion that AFR's motion was unripe.

25

Dkt. 709. AFR objected on three principal grounds. First, it argued that the Magistrate

26

Judge had incorrectly interpreted AFR's Motion to Unseal as a motion seeking to modify

27

the protective orders governing the parties to this case. See id. at 3-6. Second, AFR

28

argued that the Magistrate Judge's ruling had erroneously placed the burden of
2

1

persuasion on the party opposing secrecy, rather than, as the law requires, on the party

2

seeking secrecy. See id. at 6-10. Finally, AFR objected to a meet-and-confer

3

prerequisite to filing a motion to seal, because the meet-and-confer certification

4

requirements applied only to discovery motions. See id. at 10-12.

5

3.

Because of the significant nature of AFR's objections, AFR requested a

6

continuance to file a new motion to unseal until after the District Judge ruled on AFR's

7

objections. Dkt. 717. Recognizing that the "procedural posture of AFR's objections to

8

[the Magistrate Judge's] order has placed AFR in an uncomfortable position regarding

9

the impending January 12, 2015, deadline," the Magistrate Judge ordered on January 9,

10

2015, that "the January 12, 2015, deadline should be continued pending Chief Judge

11

Navarro's adjudication of AFR's objections." Dkt. 719 at 3.

12

4.

While AFR's objections were still pending, Ms. Belton left her position at

13

Public Justice on Friday, June 12, 2015. AFR requested, and the Magistrate Judge

14

permitted, Victoria Ni of Public Justice to replace Sarah Belton, who had previously

15

been lead attorney for AFR. Dkt. 815. The order substituting counsel was entered in the

16

docket on June 12, 2015.

17

5.

Ms. Ni was admitted to practice pro hac vice for purposes of this matter on

18

Monday, June 15, 2015, and the order was entered on the docket on June 16, 2015. Dkt.

19

819.

20

6.

Ms. Ni took a previously-scheduled personal vacation from June 17 to

21

June 27, 2015. Prior to her vacation, Ms. Ni did not have the opportunity to familiarize

22

herself with the lengthy and complicated docket in this case.

23

7.

On July 2, 2015, the District Court affirmed the Magistrate Judge's

24

November 13 Order, and gave AFR permission to file a new Sealed Motion to Unseal

25

within 21 days of the date of the Order -- i.e., on or before July 23. Dkt. 824 at 6.

26

However, the July 2 Order was not entered into the docket until July 6, which meant

27

that AFR was effectively given only 16 days to comply with the significant requirements

28

of the Order.
3

1

8.

On July 8, 2015, Ms. Ni contacted counsel for all parties to ask if they

2

would stipulate to a 60-day extension. Most of the parties, through counsel, indicated

3

agreement or tentative agreement to an extension. But on July 10, counsel for Red

4

Cedar Services, Inc. and SFS, Inc. indicated that those entities would not stipulate to an

5

extension of time, but also would not oppose a motion for an extension.

6

9.

On July 10, 2015, Ms. Ni wrote an e-mail to counsel for all parties and

7

settling defendants asking them to send to her complete, unredacted copies of all sealed,

8

redacted, and missing docket entries -- 100 such documents that she listed and

9

identified in a spreadsheet attached to the email -- by 5:00 p.m. Pacific Time on July 14.

10

She indicated that she and Craig Friedberg were willing to comply with the terms of the

11

Protective Order entered in the case (Dkt. 308) in handling the documents, and that

12

another attorney from Public Justice would soon seek pro hac vice admission in order to

13

assist with document review. She also alerted all counsel that AFR would file this

14

motion on Monday, July 13, and requested that counsel immediately inform AFR if they

15

intended to oppose this motion. All counsel have either responded that they do not

16

oppose this motion, or that they were willing to stipulate to the 60-day extension.

17

10.

Prior to July 10, counsel for AFR had not sought access to the sealed or

18

redacted court filings because they were awaiting the outcome of its objections to the

19

Magistrate Judge's Order. Counsel for AFR has now identified over 100 docket entries

20

that are sealed, redacted, or simply missing from the publicly-available version of the

21

docket sheet, and, to the extent any of those docket entries represent motions, those

22

single docket entries are likely comprised of multiple documents. A review of these

23

documents will require close coordination with counsel for the parties and settling

24

defendants to ensure a complete accounting and inventory for the sealed, redacted and

25

missing docket entries. As of July 13, counsel for the Federal Trade Commission has

26

indicated that they will produce all documents in the FTC's possession that were

27

identified in AFR's spreadsheet. Counsel for AFR has now received documents

28

associated for all but 5 docket entries identified. However, the current deadline of July
4

1
2

23 does not permit a thorough review of potentially hundreds of documents.
11.

Moreover, the Court has required counsel for AFR to meet and confer with

3

the parties to potentially reach voluntary agreements on the unsealing of court records.

4

See Dkt. 704 at 10-11; see also Dkt. 768. As with the collection and review of all

5

documents at issue here, proper compliance with this aspect of the Magistrate Judge's

6

Order will likely require significantly more time than the current deadline permits.

7
8
9
10
11
12

CONCLUSION
Therefore, in consideration of the foregoing, AFR respectfully requests an order
extending the deadline to file its new Sealed Motion to Unseal by 60 days from June 23,
and ordering AFR to file this motion on or before September 21, 2015.
A proposed Order is submitted herewith.
Dated this 13th day of July 2015.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

/s/ Victoria Ni
VICTORIA W. NI
Public Justice, P.C.
and
CRAIG FRIEDBERG
Law Offices of Craig Friedberg, Esq.
Attorneys for Intervenor
Americans for Financial Reform
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Intervenor Americans for Financial Reform's
Motion for Extension of Time to File Sealed Motion to Unseal is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Intervenor Americans for Financial Reform's
Sealed Motion to Unseal is due on or before September 21, 2015.

23
24
25

__________________________

________________________________

26

Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge
United States District Court Chief Judge
United States District Court

27

DATED:___________________
DATED: 07/20/2015.

28
5

1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

2

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b), I hereby certify that on July 13,

3

2015, I submitted the foregoing Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Sealed

4

Motion to Unseal and Proposed Order, electronically for filing and service with the

5

United States District Court of Nevada. Service of the foregoing document shall be made

6

on all counsel of record via the electronic case filing system.

7
8

/s/ Craig Friedberg
CRAIG FRIEDBERG

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6