In re: Application of Kate O'Keeffe to Issue Subpoena for Taking Deposition & Production of Documents in Foreign Proceeding
Filing
73
ORDER Granting 72 Stipulation for Joint Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 04/27/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - NEV)
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
J. Randall Jones, Esq. (#1927)
jrj@kempjones.com
Mark M. Jones, Esq. (#267)
m.jones@kempjones.com
KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Tel: (702) 385-6000
Fax: (702) 385-6001
Attorneys for Venetian Casino Resort, LLC
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
10
11
12
13
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
In re Application of
Case No.: 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH
Kate O’Keeffe
To Issue a Subpoena for the Taking of a
Deposition and the Production of Documents for
Use in a Foreign Proceeding
JOINT [PROPOSED] PROTECTIVE
ORDER
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
WHEREAS, Kate O’Keeffe (“O’Keeffe”), the defendant in Sheldon Gary Adelson and
Kate O’Keeffe, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HCA 342/2013)
(the “Hong Kong Lawsuit”), applied to the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada (the “District Court”) for assistance in obtaining discovery for her defense in that case
under 28 U.S.C. § 1782 (the “Application”); and
WHEREAS, O’Keeffe filed an Application seeking the issuance of a subpoena to
Jonathan Allan Molnar (“Molnar”) to testify at a videotaped deposition and produce documents
in a civil action (the “Subpoena”) (The documents and deposition testimony are referred to
collectively herein as the “Subpoenaed Materials”); and
WHEREAS, third party the Venetian Casino Resort, LLC (the “Venetian”) objected to
the Application because, inter alia , it believed that the Subpoenaed Materials could include
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 2 of 9
1
information that is subject to confidentiality agreements and which is otherwise proprietary
2
(Dkt. No. 55) (the “Objection”); and
3
WHEREAS, the District Court denied the Objection on April 4, 2016 (Dkt. No. 64); and
4
WHEREAS, the District Court ordered O’Keeffe and the Venetian to meet and confer
5
and submit a proposed protective order in anticipation of any disclosures that might involve
6
confidential commercial information;
7
8
9
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by O’Keeffe and
the Venetian (collectively, the “Parties”) as follows:
1.
The Venetian may designate portions of the Subpoenaed Materials as
10
“CONFIDENTIAL.” Any such “CONFIDENTIAL” designation shall subject the designated
11
portion to the provisions of this Protective Order (hereinafter, the “Order”).
12
2.
The “CONFIDENTIAL” designation shall be used only for any portion of the
13
Subpoenaed Materials that the Venetian considers in good faith to contain commercially
14
sensitive and/or proprietary information not otherwise known or available to the public (the
15
“Confidential Commercial Information”).
16
3.
The Order is not intended to give any party the right to indiscriminately
17
designate material as “Confidential.” The mere fact that a party might prefer that a document or
18
deposition page be deemed “confidential” is not in and of itself sufficient to justify a
19
confidential designation. Likewise, a party may not designate material as “confidential” under
20
the terms of this Order merely because disclosure might cause discomfort or embarrassment.
21
Instead, this Order is designed to provide relief for confidential proprietary commercial
22
information.
23
24
4.
Treatment of Documents Produced in Response to the Subpoena
a.
Any documents produced by Molnar in response to the Subpoena will be
25
provisionally treated as CONFIDENTIAL for up to ten (10) business days after their
26
service to enable review by the parties’ counsel. Within ten (10) business days of being
27
served with any documents produced in response to the Subpoena, the Venetian may
Page 2 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 9
1
request that specific documents or portions thereof, identified by bates number, be
2
stamped with the words “CONFIDENTIAL” on the face of the document and treated
3
according to that designation.
b.
4
The Venetian shall in good faith determine whether specific Confidential
5
Commercial Information may be redacted from any documents, such that redacted
6
versions of those documents would not be designated “CONFIDENTIAL.” In the event
7
that any party disagrees with any of the requested designations and/ or redactions, that
8
party may so notify the Venetian in writing of the objection within thirty (30) business
9
days of receipt of the “CONFIDENTIAL” designation/redaction. In the event the
10
parties are unable to reach agreement as to re-designation and/or redactions, the parties
11
may seek intervention from the Magistrate Judge as set forth in Section 11 herein.
12
5.
13
Treatment of Deposition Testimony
a.
Deposition testimony, any portion of deposition testimony or exhibits to
14
depositions may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” by advising the reporter and
15
counsel of such designation during the course of the deposition or by advising counsel
16
in writing within ten (10) business days of the receipt of the deposition transcript.
17
b.
The Venetian shall in good faith determine whether specific Confidential
18
Commercial Information may be redacted from any deposition testimony, any portion
19
of deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions, such that redacted versions of the
20
same would not be designated “CONFIDENTIAL.” In the event that any party
21
disagrees with any of the requested designations and/or redactions, that party may so
22
notify the Venetian of the objection in writing within thirty (30) business days of receipt
23
of the ”CONFIDENTIAL” designation of the deposition testimony, any portion of
24
deposition testimony or exhibits to depositions In the event the parties are unable to
25
reach agreement as to re-designation and/or redactions, the parties may seek
26
intervention from the Magistrate Judge as set forth in Section 11 herein
27
Page 3 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 4 of 9
1
6.
Whenever any Subpoenaed Material designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” is used
2
or submitted to any court in conjunction with any filing or proceeding, the designating party
3
shall have the burden of justifying the sealing of any such filing, pursuant to this Order,
4
applicable local laws and/or court rules, if any. Before seeking to maintain the sealing of any
5
documents filed with a court, the designating party must assess whether redaction is a viable
6
alternative to complete sealing. The mere fact that a party stamped “CONFIDENTIAL” on a
7
document, or deposition testimony, any portion of deposition testimony or exhibits to
8
depositions even if done in good faith, will not be sufficient to justify the sealing of a filing.
9
7.
Any Subpoenaed Material designated “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be and remain
10
confidential and shall not be disclosed in any fashion, in writing or orally, except as explicitly
11
permitted by this Order, and may not be used for any purpose other than in connection with
12
prosecution or defense of or in discovery related to or in connection with the Hong Kong
13
Lawsuit.
14
8.
Except upon prior written consent of the Venetian, any Subpoenaed Material
15
designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be held in confidence and shall be used solely for the
16
purpose of prosecution or defense of or discovery for the Hong Kong Lawsuit. Access to
17
Subpoenaed Materials designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall be limited to:
18
(a)
counsel for the parties, including in-house counsel and employees of such
19
counsel;
20
(b)
the Magistrate Judge, District Court and court personnel as allowed herein;
21
(c)
counsel for the parties in the Hong Kong Lawsuit, including in-house counsel
22
and employees of such counsel who are assisting in the prosecution or defense of or in
23
discovery for the Hong Kong Lawsuit;
24
(d)
Molnar and his counsel;
25
(e)
Applicant Kate O’Keeffe;
26
(f)
experts and consultants (including independent experts and consultants and
27
employees or clerical assistants of experts) who are employed, retained or otherwise
Page 4 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 5 of 9
1
consulted by counsel identified in subsections (a) or (c) for the purpose of analyzing
2
data, conducting studies or providing opinions to assist in the Hong Kong Lawsuit;
3
(g)
4
either in deposition or at trial;
5
(h)
6
Subpoenaed Material designated as “CONFIDENTIAL”;
7
(i)
the insurers of any of the parties to the Hong Kong Lawsuit; and
8
(j)
any person to whom the Venetian agrees in writing, although no disclosure of
9
any Subpoenaed Materials designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” may be made to such
witnesses for the limited purpose of preparing for testimony or giving testimony
the author, addressee or recipient or person who previously had access to the
10
person until written agreement is provided by the Venetian.
11
9.
In the event that O’Keeffe seeks to disclose Subpoenaed Materials designated
12
“CONFIDENTIAL” to a specific individual not otherwise authorized under this Order, and the
13
Venetian refuses to consent to such disclosure after reasonable notice, then O’Keeffe may
14
submit a written request to the Magistrate Judge with a copy to the Venetian. Such request shall
15
identify the individual or entity and state the reason for the request. No “CONFIDENTIAL”
16
information shall be provided or disclosed to said individual or entity for a period of ten (10)
17
business days following the written request to the Magistrate Judge. During that ten (10)
18
business day period, the Venetian and any other person or entity that opposes the request may
19
file an objection with the Magistrate Judge. Until such objection is resolved by the parties or
20
the Magistrate Judge, no “CONFIDENTIAL” information may be disclosed to the individual or
21
entity who is the subject of the pending objection. Access to Subpoenaed Materials designated
22
as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall further be limited to all persons given access under Sections 8 (f),
23
(g), (i), (j) and 9 after they have executed the Confidentiality Agreement attached hereto as
24
Exhibit “1”.
25
10.
This Agreement shall be interpreted, applied and enforced by the Magistrate
26
Judge. The parties agree that jurisdiction over this action is to be retained by the Magistrate
27
Judge for purposes of enabling any party or persons affected by this Order, to apply to the
Page 5 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 6 of 9
1
Magistrate Judge at any time for such direction or further decree as may be appropriate for the
2
construction or enforcement of this Order or for such additional relief as may be appropriate.
3
11.
If any party disagrees with the designation of any Subpoenaed Materials as
4
“CONFIDENTIAL,” that party may at any time within thirty (30) business days of receipt of
5
the designation give written notice to the Venetian, specifically describing the designated
6
Subpoenaed Material along with the basis for the request to re-designate. The Venetian shall
7
thereafter advise the party whether it will change the designation. Unless the parties agree
8
otherwise, the Venetian shall have ten (10) business days from the receipt of such written
9
notice to apply to the Magistrate Judge for an order designating the material as
10
“CONFIDENTIAL”. If such an application is made, the “CONFIDENTIAL” designations
11
shall remain “CONFIDENTIAL” until there is a ruling by the Magistrate Judge. The Venetian
12
will have the burden of establishing that the document or information is entitled to be
13
designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” If the Venetian does not make a timely motion in the
14
Magistrate Judge, then the documents or information will be effectively de-designated. Any
15
party can appeal a decision of the Magistrate Judge to the District Court, but must seek and
16
obtain a stay of disclosure if the party wishes to stay disclosure pending the appeal to the
17
District Court.
18
12.
In the event a dispute arises under this Order, no party to the dispute will
19
proceed by motion to the court with respect to such dispute without first promptly meeting and
20
conferring with the other party(-ies) to the dispute in an attempt to resolve the dispute.
21
13.
This Order shall not be construed to prevent the parties from applying to the
22
Magistrate Judge for relief therefrom or for further or additional protective orders, or from
23
agreeing between themselves to modification, provided however that any such modifications
24
must be in writing and agreed upon by both parties.
25
14.
This Order shall be binding on, and inure to benefit of, the parties hereto and his
26
or its agents, employees, employers, successors, assigns, heirs, administrators and
27
representatives.
Page 6 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 7 of 9
1
15.
This Order shall survive the termination of the Hong Kong Lawsuit, and the
2
Magistrate Judge shall retain jurisdiction to resolve any dispute concerning the use of
3
information disclosed hereunder.
4
DATED this 26th day of April, 2016.
5
KEMP JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
6
/s/ Mark M. Jones
________________________________
J. Randall Jones, Esq. (#1927)
jrj@kempjones.com
Mark M. Jones, Esq. (#267)
m.jones@kempjones.com
KEMP, JONES & COULTHARD, LLP
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Tel: (702) 385-6000
Fax: (702) 385-6001
Attorneys for Venetian Casino Resort, LLC
/s/ Constance M. Pendleton
_____________________________
Laura R. Handman
Constance M. Pendleton
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 8th Floor
Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202)
973-4224 Facsimile: (202) 973-4499
laurahandman@dwt.com
conniependleton@dwt.com
admitted pro hac vice)
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Pat Lundvall (NSBN 3761)
Kristen T. Gallagher (NSBN 9561)
McDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
2300 W. Sahara Avenue, Suite 1200 Las
Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (702) 873-4100
Facsimile: (702) 873-9966
lundvall@mcdonaldcarano.com
kgallagher@mcdonaldcarano.com
Attorneys for Kate O’Keeffe
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
IT IS SO ORDERED:
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DATED:
__________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge
DATED: April 27, 2016
25
26
27
Page 7 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 8 of 9
1
EXHIBIT “1”
2
CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT
3
4
5
I, _________________________ do hereby acknowledge and agree, under penalty of
perjury, as follows:
1.
I have read the Stipulated Protective Order entered in In re Application of Kate
6
O’Keefe To Issue a Subpoena for the Taking of a Deposition and the Producing of Documents
7
for Use in a Foreign Proceeding, Case No.: 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH, pending in the United
8
States District Court for the District of Nevada, on _____________, ____________, and I fully
9
understand its contents.
10
11
12
2.
I hereby agree and consent to be bound by the terms of the Protective Order and
to comply with it in all respects.
3.
I understand that by signing this instrument, I will be eligible to receive
13
information marked “CONFIDENTIAL” under the terms and conditions of the Protective
14
Order. I further understand and agree that I must treat any information marked
15
“CONFIDENTIAL” in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Protective Order.
16
DATED:
17
(Signature)
18
(Printed Name)
19
(Address)
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page 8 of 9
Case 2:14-cv-01518-RFB-CWH Document 72 Filed 04/26/16 Page 9 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
The undersigned hereby certifies that service of the foregoing JOINT [PROPOSED]
2
3
PROTECTIVE ORDER was made on the 26th day of April, 2016, via the United States
4
District Court’s CM/ECF electronic filing system addressed to all parties on the e-service
5
list.
6
7
8
/s/ David Blake
______________________________________
An employee of Kemp, Jones & Coulthard
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Page 9 of 9
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?