Mendy v. Larson et al

Filing 99

ORDER denying Defendant's 95 Joint MOTION for Discovery LCR 37 re Protective Order. Signed by Judge Lauren King. (SS)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 SANG W. MENDY, v. CASE NO. 2:22-cv-01426-LK Plaintiff, TRACY L. LARSON et al., ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING Defendants. 15 16 This matter comes before the Court on the motion of Defendant American Security 17 Programs, Inc. (“ASP”) for a protective order, which it filed as a joint expedited motion pursuant 18 to Local Civil Rule 37. Dkt. No. 95. The Court appreciates the parties’ efforts to submit their 19 discovery dispute under Rule 37. Having carefully reviewed that submission, the Court DENIES 20 ASP’s motion because whether the Stock Purchase Agreement, Dkt. No. 97 at 3–160, is supported 21 by consideration is relevant to the parties’ dispute, see Dkt. No. 82 at 3 (noting that the Stock 22 Purchase Agreement in redacted form fails to show any consideration), and producing the purchase 23 price in unredacted form is proportional to the needs of the case. However, the parties must first 24 execute a confidentiality agreement as described below. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING -1 1 The Court ORDERS the following: 2 1. ASP’s motion for a protective order, Dkt. No. 95, is DENIED. 3 2. If the parties have not already done so, within seven days of the date of this Order 4 they must execute a confidentiality agreement protecting the redacted information 5 in the Stock Purchase Agreement. This agreement need not be submitted to the 6 Court. 7 3. Upon execution of the confidentiality agreement, ASP must submit to Plaintiff 8 Sang Mendy the Stock Purchase Agreement without redactions to the purchase 9 price. 1 10 4. Within five business days of receipt of the unredacted Stock Purchase Agreement, 11 Mendy must file a supplemental brief of no more than 2,100 words addressing how 12 (if at all) the unredacted information affects his opposition to ASP’s motion for 13 summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 82. The supplemental brief may not assert new 14 arguments that could have been raised in Mendy’s opposition brief. 15 5. Within four business days thereafter, ASP may file an optional reply of no more 16 than 2,100 words. 17 Dated this 8th day of May, 2024. 18 A 19 Lauren King United States District Judge 20 21 22 23 24 ASP has filed two versions of the Stock Purchase Agreement under seal, see Dkt. Nos. 94, 97, without complying with the requirements for filing a document under seal under Local Civil Rule 5(g). Because the standards for discoverability and sealing are different, the Rule 37 motion is insufficient to comply with Rule 5(g). If the Court does not receive a proper motion pursuant to Rule 5(g)(2)(B) by May 13, 2024, it will unseal docket entries 94 and 97. The Court further notes that the fact that the redacted information will be protected by a confidentiality agreement does not entitle ASP to file it under seal. See Ctr. for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Grp., LLC, 809 F.3d 1092, 1101 (9th Cir. 2016) (describing the standards for sealing). 1 ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AND REQUESTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING -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?