He et al v. Rom et al

Filing 106

Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/22/16 denying the motion of defendants IIP Ohio, LLC, IIP Akron, LLC, IIP Cleveland Regeneration, LLC, IIP Cleveland Regeneration 2, LLC, IIP Management, LLC, Investor Income Properties, LLC, and Assets Unlimited, LLC, for a protective order for the reasons given in the Court's order dated 3/10/16 resolving defendant Davor Rom's motion for protective order. (Related Doc. 83 ) (D,MA)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO ------------------------------------------------------: RUI HE, et al., : : Plaintiffs, : : v. : : DAVOR ROM, et al., : : Defendants. : : : ------------------------------------------------------- Case. No. 1:15-CV-1869 OPINION & ORDER [Resolving Docs. 83] JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE: Rui He represents a putative class of Chinese investors who invested in, and claimed to have been scammed by, Davor Rom and his companies Investor Income Properties, LLC, IIP Ohio, IIP Management, IIP Cleveland Regeneration, LLC, IIP Cleveland Regeneration 2, LLC, Assets Unlimited, LLC, and IIP Akron, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”). Discovery in the case is ongoing. Defendant Rom and the Defendant Corporations both moved for a protective order.1 Plaintiffs moved to compel.2 At the time that this Court ruled on the pending discovery motions, the Defendant Corporations’ motion for a protective order was not yet ripe. Defendant Corporations moved for an extension of time until March 11, 2016 to file their reply brief.3 The Court granted the motion.4 As a result, the Court’s opinion dated March 10, 2016 did not resolve the Defendant Corporations’ motion for a protective order.5 Despite the extension of time, the Defendant Corporations did not file a reply brief. 1 Doc. 83; Doc. 76. Doc. 70, Doc. 71, Doc. 87, Doc. 88. 3 Doc. 93. 4 Doc. 96. 5 Doc. 97. 2 Case No. 1:15-CV-1869 Gwin, J. For the reasons given in resolving Defendant Rom’s protective order in the March 10, 2016 opinion, the Court DENIES the Defendant Corporations’ motion for a protective order. Nevertheless, the parties are not to disclose any of the discovered information to anyone outside this litigation. Before any party files any documents that include “personal information, financial information, medical or psychiatric information, personnel records, commercially sensitive information that is not publically available or what contains a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information,”6 the party needs to provide notice to the opposing party to afford them an opportunity to object to the filing. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 22, 2016 6 s/ James S. Gwin JAMES S. GWIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Doc. 83-1 at 3-4. 2

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?