Ruhlmann et al v. Rudolfsky et al

Filing 134

ORDER Denying Defendant's 127 Emergency Motion for Protective Order and Defendant's 128 Emergency Motion to Quash. The Court orders the parties to formulate a stipulated protective order and file it by 11/23/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/17/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

10
MAX RUHLMAN, et al.,
11
12
13
14
15

)
)
Plaintiff(s),
)
)
v.
)
)
GLENN RUDOLFSKY, et al.,
)
)
Defendant(s).
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:14-cv-00879-RFB-NJK
ORDER
(Docket Nos. 127, 128)

16

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for protective order or to quash subpoenas, filed

17

on an emergency basis on November 14, 2016. Docket Nos. 127, 128. Plaintiffs filed a response in

18

opposition. Docket No. 132. The motions came on for an expedited hearing on November 17, 2016.

19

Docket No. 133. For the reasons discussed more fully below, the motions are both DENIED.

20

For purposes of these motions, the Court assumes without deciding both that a party has standing

21

to move to quash a subpoena based on a “personal right or privilege” in the documents sought and that

22

a party has a personal right in his banking records sufficient to establish standing.1 Assuming all of that

23

as true, however, the Court fails to discern how Defendants’ concerns regarding the banking records

24

cannot be sufficiently addressed through the entry of a stipulated protective order. See, e.g., Paws Up

25

Ranch, 2013 WL 6184940, at *4 (citing In re Heritage Bond Litig., 2004 WL 1970058, at *5 n.12 (C.D.

26
27
28

1

To be clear, there is no “privilege” in banking records, however. See, e.g., Paws Up Ranch, LLC
v. Green, 2013 WL 6184940, at *3 (D. Nev. Nov. 22, 2013).

1

Cal. July 23, 2004)). At the hearing, Defendants’ counsel insinuated that Plaintiff’s counsel might not

2

comply with the terms of a stipulated protective order. See Hearing Rec. (11/17/2016) at 8:43, 8:45 -

3

8:46 a.m. Such speculation is not persuasive. See, e.g., Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc.,

4

813 F.2d 1207, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (“We will not assume that counsel would breach the duty of an

5

officer of the court by disclosing sales information to Truswal or to any Hyrdro-Air competitor in

6

violation of a protective order”). Similarly, Defendants’ counsel conveyed Defendants’ general

7

reluctance to disclose the information given their view that it is competitively sensitive. See Hearing

8

Rec. (11/17/2016) at 8:42 - 8:43 a.m. This contention is also unpersuasive. Cf. Truswal, 813 F.2d at

9

1211 (finding that the “normal and expected reluctance” to divulge sensitive information “is in itself an

10

insufficient basis on which to deny discovery of that information under appropriate protection from

11

divulgement to competitors”). Lastly, Defendants’ counsel expressed concern that it may be necessary

12

to file these documents with the Court at some point. See Hearing Rec. (11/17/2016) at 8:45 a.m. This

13

contention similarly fails as there are procedures available to enable the sealing or in camera review of

14

documents if the appropriate standards can be met. See Local Rule IA 10-5; Kamakana v. City and

15

County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006).

16

Because the entry of a stipulated protective order is sufficient to address the concerns presented,

17

the pending motions are both DENIED. The Court ORDERS the parties to formulate a stipulated

18

protective order and to file it by November 23, 2016. Until such protective order is entered, Plaintiffs’

19

counsel shall not disclose to any person any banking records received in connection with the disputed

20

subpoenas. Once the protective order is entered, the banking records shall be designated as “highly

21

confidential,” such that they are reviewable only by attorneys and accounting experts. The stipulated

22

protective order shall also provide that the subpoenaed records will be destroyed within 60 days of the

23

termination of this litigation, including any subsequent appeal.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

DATED: November 17, 2016

26
27

______________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

28
2