Sentinel Rock Wealth Management, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company v. Hartley et al

Filing 44

PROTECTIVE ORDER re Cox Communications on ECF No. 43 Stipulation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach on 11/13/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12

Ryan J. Lorenz - #8165
CLARK HILL PLC
14850 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 500
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Andre M. Lagomarsino - #6711
LAGOMARSINO LAW
3005 West Horizon Ridge Parkway, Suite 241
Henderson, Nevada 89052
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
Sentinel Rock Wealth Management, LLC

13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

14

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

15
16

Sentinel Rock Wealth Management, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company,

17
18

CASE NO: 2:16-cv-01643-MMD-VCF

Plaintiff,
STIPULATED PROTECTIVE
ORDER RE COX
COMMUNICATIONS

vs.

19
20
21

Kenneth R. Hartley; Erisey Wealth
Management, L.L.C., an Arizona limited
liability company,

22

Defendants.

23
24

This matter came before the court on the stipulation for entry of protective order re

25
1 of 6

26
27
28

205231042.1 54833/198850
216210051.1 54833/198850
216486743.1 54833/198850

1
2

Cox Communications. The court finds as follows:
1. On November 1, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff caused a subpoena to be issued to the

3

custodian of records for Cox Communications Arizona LLC (“Cox AZ”) for records that
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

include the following:
a. All email sent and received from and to the address,
[e-mail], and any other email addresses for the
subscriber owning the cable, telephone, internet service account for
the email address, [e-mail], and/or Kenneth Hartley,
members of the Kenneth Hartley family or household, Erisey Wealth
Management, LLC, or any business entity known to be owned or
controlled by Kenneth Hartley, during the time period May 1, 2014
through May 31, 2017 (collectively, “Cox Emails”).
b. The telephone records of all phone calls made or received by
Kenneth Hartley, during the time period May 1, 2014 through May
31, 2017 (“Cox Phone Records”).
(collectively, “Subpoenaed Documents”).
2. On November 9, 2016, Mr. Hartley objected to the production claiming that it was
overbroad and intrusive.
3. The production of the Subpoenaed Documents requires consent under the Stored

19
20

Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

21

4. The parties have agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena to Subpoenaed

22

Documents more likely to be directly relevant to the claims and defenses, but do not yet

23

know whether search results will yield an unacceptable quantity (too great or too small) of

24
25

results, as set forth in this order.
2 of 6

26
27
28

205231042.1 54833/198850
216210051.1 54833/198850
216486743.1 54833/198850

1

Based upon the foregoing findings, the parties’ stipulation, and subject to the

2

provisions of the court’s protective order entered on December 1, 2016 [ECF No. 20], and

3

good cause appearing,
4
5

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

6

A. Defendant Hartley’s consent as originator, addressee or intended recipient of

7

electronic communication is given and hereby acknowledged under 18 U.S.C. §

8

2702(b)(3) as to the Cox Emails. Defendant Hartley’s consent as customer and
9
10
11
12
13

subscriber under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(2) is given and hereby acknowledged as to
the Cox Phone Records.
B. Cox AZ, together with CoxCom, LLC; Cox Advanced Services Arizona, LLC;
Cox Arizona Telcom, LLC; Cox Business Services, LLC; Cox Data Center, LLC;

14
15

Cox Media, LLC; Cox Search, Inc.; Cox Shared Services, LLC; Cox TMI

16

Wireless, LLC; Cox Wireless Access, LLC (collectively, “Cox Entities”) shall

17

produce the Cox Emails that are within the scope of the Cox Emails and which

18

contain the following terms, either in the body of the Cox Emails, in the subject

19
20

line, or in the addressee, sender, carbon copy or blind copy fields of the Cox

21

Emails:

22

“covenant”; “Clarus”; “Sentinel”; “Bloomfield”; “Morris”; “Proud”; “Sparling”;

23

“[e-mail]”;

“joemoney”;

“joemoneyaz”;

“breach”;

“Bowman”; “Shugars”; “Wagar”; “Wilsey”; “Kersten”; “Lafia”; “Hodgman”;

24
25

“Martin”; “Maynard”; “Niskanen”; “Reahm”; “Rector”; “Raneses”; “Foster”;
3 of 6

26
27
28

205231042.1 54833/198850
216210051.1 54833/198850
216486743.1 54833/198850

1

“compete”;

“competition”;

“non-compete”;

“non-competition”;

“solicit”;

2

“solicitation”; “non-solicit”; “non-solicitation”; “Erisey”; “resign”; “resignation”;

3

“LPOA”; “power of attorney”; “power-of-attorney”; “POA”; “attorney-in-fact”;
4
5

“attorney in fact”; “Beacon”; “Meadows”; “Bennett”; “Blankenburg”; “Blyth”;

6

“Shelley”; “Fox”; “Gannatti”; “Noel”; “Navellier”; “Schott”; “Serio”; “Sparks”;

7

“Toledo”; Treacy”; “Walsh”; “Becker”; “Benjes”; “Hale”; “Lipkind”; “Nejork”;

8

“Navon”; “Serio”; “Steinberg”; “Thomakkara”; “Rilus”; “Vlad”; “Rossi”;
9
10

“Andresen”;

“Marchesi”;

“Moretti”;

“Regal”;

“Flynn”;

“Davenport”;

11

“Robichaud”; “Alta-Trust”; “Ponder”; “Salt River”; “Johnson”; “Wolfpoint”;

12

“Levanti”; “Kadish”; “Reichman”; “Halopoff”; “Symcox”; “Davey”; “Melich”;

13

“Riley”; “Lenz”; “Frydenlund”; “Ernst”; “Brutinel”; “Lewis”; “Merhege”;

14
15

“pipeline”. The search terms will be “non-case-specific,” meaning that the search

16

will be conducted in such a way as to capture results whether a letter of a search

17

term is capitalized or not.

18

C. The search terms above are without prejudice to Plaintiff’s further request for

19
20

additional searches in the event that the searches result in no or reasonably too

21

few results. Upon motion and showing of cause, the Plaintiff may move to

22

modify this order to include a greater number of search terms.

23

D. The Cox Entities shall produce all Cox Phone Records and all Cox Emails with

24
25

search terms (collectively referred to as “Cox Records”) within twenty-one (21)
4 of 6

26
27
28

205231042.1 54833/198850
216210051.1 54833/198850
216486743.1 54833/198850

1

days of receipt of a copy of this order by any medium, including email. The Cox

2

Entities may interpose an objection to this order as if being re-served with the

3

original subpoena.
4
5

E. The Cox Entities shall produce the Cox Records to FRONTEO at 111 West

6

Monroe Street, Suite 1120, Phoenix, AZ 85003, to the attention of Steve

7

Thompson (the “Vendor”). If the total number of emails are 1,000 or less, the

8

Vendor shall prepare and produce the records in individual bates-numbered
9
10

electronic, searchable PDFs (with each attachment numbered so they follow

11

directly behind their parent email) along with a spreadsheet capturing the

12

following fields for all emails produced: beginning bates, ending bates, family—

13

beginning bates, family—ending bates, from, to, cc, bcc, subject, filename, file

14
15

extension, date sent, time sent, date created, time created, date last modified, time

16

last modified. If the total number of emails are more than 1,000, the Vendor shall

17

contact the parties and inform them of the estimated number of emails. The

18

Parties will meet and confer regarding the appropriate format for disclosure and

19
20

jointly instruct the Vendor.

21

F. The Vendor shall produce as set forth above to Defendants’ counsel, Molly

22

Rezac, Ogletree Deakins, at its Las Vegas office located at 3800 Howard Hughes

23

Parkway, Suite 1500, Las Vegas, NV 89169, so that a privilege review may be

24
25

conducted. Upon receipt, Defendants’ counsel shall have thirty (30) day within
5 of 6

26
27
28

205231042.1 54833/198850
216210051.1 54833/198850
216486743.1 54833/198850

1

which to conduct the privilege review. Once the privileged review is completed,

2

Defendants’ counsel shall disclose all non-privileged documents to Plaintiff’s

3

counsel together with a privilege log of any documents withheld. Plaintiffs shall
4
5
6
7

pay the Vendor for all costs incurred in relation to this subpoena. .
G. The Cox Entities shall be entitled to payment of costs by the Plaintiff as required
by law, specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 2706.

8

H. The court reserves jurisdiction to modify, vacate and enforce this order against
9
10

parties and the Cox Entities.

11

DATED this 10 day of November, 2017.

DATED this 10 day of November, 2017.

12

LAGOMARSINO LAW

OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK
& STEWART, P.C.

13
14
15

/s/ Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq.______
Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq.
3005 W. Horizon Ridge Pkwy., Ste. 241
Henderson, Nevada 89052

16
17

DATED this 10 day of November 2017.

18

CLARK HILL PLC

19

/s/ Molley M. Rezac
Molly M. Rezac, Esq.
Marcus B. Smith, Esq.
3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Ste. 1500
Las Vegas, Nevada 89169
Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth Hartley,
and Erisey Wealth Management, LLC

/s/ Ryan J. Lorenz
Ryan J. Lorenz, Esq.
14850 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 500
Scottsdale, Arizona 85254
Attorneys for Plaintiff

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED:
______________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
11-13-2017
DATED: ______________________________

23
24
25

6 of 6

26
27
28

205231042.1 54833/198850
216210051.1 54833/198850
216486743.1 54833/198850