Humphries et al v. Button

Filing 421

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' 372 Emergency Motion for Sanctionsand for an Order Compelling Defendants' Adherence to the Court's Protective Orders is GRANTED to the extent Defendants must comply with this Courts Ord ers pertaining to confidentiality. Plaintiffs' request for sanction is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Emergency Motion and Request for Judicial Discipline Against Plaintiffs' Counsel and Motion to Supplement Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 375 , 381 ) are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah on 11/21/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3

***

4
5
6

SAGE HUMPHRIES, GINA MENICHINO,
ROSEMARIE DeANGELO, DANIELLE
GUTIERREZ, JANE DOE 1, and JANE DOE
2,

ORDER

Plaintiffs,

7
8

Case No. 2:21-cv-01412-ART-EJY

v.

9

MITCHELL TAYLOR BUTTON and
DUSTY BUTTON,

10

Defendants.

11
12

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Sanctions and for an Order

13

Compelling Defendants’ Adherence to the Court’s Protective Orders. ECF No. 372. This Motion

14

arises from filings in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. Also pending is

15

Defendants’ Emergency Motion and Request for Judicial Discipline Against Plaintiffs’ Counsel and

16

Motion to Supplement Defendants’ Response to Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Sanctions. ECF

17

Nos. 375, 381.

18

As a preliminary matter, and as the parties know or should know, I cannot issue an Order

19

directing the District of New Hampshire to take any particular action. Nonetheless, it is beyond

20

debate that I have entered several Orders regarding confidentiality requiring the non-public

21

disclosure of Jane Doe 1’s name, personal information, and materials marked as confidential or

22

highly confidential produced in this case. A non-exclusive list of these Orders includes ECF Nos.

23

51 (a protective order), 53 (also another protective order), 163 at 61-62 (including that materials

24

disclosed in discovery could be used for no purpose other than the instant litigation), and 166 (a

25

supplemental stipulated protective order). On July 19, 2024, the Buttons filed an action in the

26

District of New Hampshire against Jane Doe’s parents, as well as an attorney and therapist associated

27

with Jane Doe 1. 1 My review of the docket in the New Hampshire matter shows numerous

28

1

U.S. Dist. Court for the District of New Hampshire Case No. 1:24-cv-220-SM-AJ.
1

1

documents were filed many of which are now sealed. Despite the filing of sealed documents

2

Plaintiffs demonstrate that redacted versions of filings contain the names of Jane Doe’s family

3

members and other confidential information in violation of my prior Orders. Defendants say

4

Plaintiffs misrepresent the facts. As stated, my review reveals the contrary.

5

The disclosure of information that could only come from confidential deposition testimony

6

or medical records violates the Court’s Order making clear that once such information is obtained it

7

cannot be used for any purpose other than this litigation. Said plainly, this Court’s Orders establish

8

that certain information disclosed in this case cannot be used in other cases even when related and

9

in federal court. See Silicon Genesis Corporation v. EV Group E. Thallner GMBH, Case No. 22-

10

cv-04986-JSC, 2023 WL 6882749, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2023). Defendants are mistaken when

11

they contend Plaintiffs’ counsel was out of line when demanding compliance with this Court’s

12

Orders. With respect to violation of Ethics Opinion No. 1983-73, Defendants are incorrect.

13

Defendants are in violation of this Court’s numerous, well documented Orders regarding

14

confidentiality. See Gayler v. High Desert State Prison, Case No. 2:17-CV-02429-JAD-EJY, 2020

15

WL 1149894 (D. Nev. Mar. 9, 2020). 2

16

While I find Defendants’ conduct in violation of the Court’s Orders, I do, as I have

17

previously, provide guidance and an opportunity for compliance. To ensure the Buttons have access

18

to the Courts, I reiterate that no further public filing of any information derived from or

19

documents marked as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential” produced in this case may be

20

used in any other litigation or for any public purpose of any kind without filing the entirety of

21

the information and or document under seal. This includes any discussion, reference to, or display

22

of the content of confidential or highly confidential information. The public filing of euphemisms

23

or paraphrasing of the contents of confidential or highly confidential information violates the terms

24

of this Order. 3 Filing a document on the publicly available docket along with a motion to seal does

25

not meet the requirements of this Order.

26
27
28

The Court finds no violation of the duty to meet and confer with respect to either Plaintiffs’ or Defendants’
Motion as the relationship between the parties, for good reason, does no portend that this process would lead to anything
other than further animosity.
3
Courts around the country allow provisional (temporary) sealing while the court considers a motion to seal.
2

2

1

The Court has been lenient with Defendants who proceed pro se, and have been given every

2

opportunity to understand these proceedings and comply with Court Orders. Defendants must abide

3

by the confidentiality requirements imposed by this Court or risk sanctions—including the striking

4

of an answer or other case ending sanctions. Failure to comply with this Order will result in

5

consideration of severe sanctions.

6

Finally, the Court takes this opportunity to remind Defendants that use of threatening

7

language, pictures, and memes will not be tolerated. See ECF Nos. 378 at 8-9; 378-2 at 2; 378-3;

8

378-4; 378-5. Plaintiffs’ counsel’s communication does not include similar language or threats, but

9

is direct and relevant to the litigation. Defendants must stop the personal ad hominem attacks on

10

Plaintiffs’ counsel or severe sanctions will be considered.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Sanctions

12

and for an Order Compelling Defendants’ Adherence to the Court’s Protective Orders (ECF No.

13

372) is GRANTED to the extent Defendants must comply with this Court’s Orders pertaining to

14

confidentiality. Plaintiffs’ request for sanction is DENIED without prejudice.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Emergency Motion and Request for Judicial

16

Discipline Against Plaintiffs’ Counsel and Motion to Supplement Defendants’ Response to

17

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Sanctions (ECF Nos. 375, 381) are DENIED.

18

Dated this 21st day of November, 2024.

19
20
21

ELAYNA J. YOUCHAH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3