High Sierra Holistics, LLC v. State of Nevada, Department of Taxation

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 14, 2019·No. 3:19-cv-00271·Unknown

Opinion

AWG □□ UVOVVG FE LTEVEEVIES NEP LUTON rN Or Ue eee

1 || HOLLEY, DRIGGS, WALCH, FINE, PUZEY, STEIN & THOMPSON 2 || James W. Puzey, Esq. (NV Bar No. 5745) Michael Ayers, Esq. (NV Bar No. 10851) 3 || 800 South Meadows Parkway, #800 Reno, Nevada 89521 4 || Telephone: 775-851-8700 Facsimile: 775-851-7681 Attorney for High Sierra Holistics, LLC 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA Dz 9 HIGH SIERRA HOLISTICS, LLC, Case No. 3:19-CV-00271-MMD-CBC oO Plaintiff, «10 STIPULATED MOTION AND o 11 v. PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER THE STATE OF NEVADA, DEPARTMENT | REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY OF 12 || OF TAXATION, DOES 1-10 and ROE DISCOVERY MATERIAL AND z CORPORATIONS 1-10, INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE ORDER - 13 Defendants. CQ > 15 Plaintiff, High Sierra Holistics (‘Plaintiff’), and Defendant State of Nevada, Department 5 16 || of Taxation of (“Defendant” individually and collectively “the Parties”), hereby respectfully move a 17 || the Court for entry of a Protective and Inadvertent Disclosure Order. The Parties seek to maintain a — Z 18 || the confidentiality of certain documents by governing their handling and to protect documents

19 || subject to the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil =z OC v 20 || Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) and Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d), and in support thereof states as = 21 |) follows: 22 The Parties’ proposed order is intended to permit and restrict the exchange of confidential 23 || information and documents during discovery. For example, the Parties seek to protect discoverable 24 || documents and materials relating to items such as (1) the materials, policies and procedures, and 25 || business plans for Plaintiff and other applicants who submitted applications to Defendant (“Other 26 || Applicants”) for a marijuana license, (2) Plaintiff's and other Applicants’ board members, owners 27 || and other persons who submitted personal information, including but not limited to banking and 28 || financial information, in support of Plaintiff's and Other Applicants’ applications for a marijuana

ADS Ve FAUT IVIL Ny UTE, TON I hr ECA ee

1 || license, (3) the Parties’ personal and confidential employee information, (4) Defendant’s internal 2 |) and confidential security information for its computer systems, and (5) other trade secret 3 || information maintained by the Parties and other Applicants (collectively “Confidential 4 || Information”). The basis for this Motion is several fold: 1) to protect confidential and sensitive 5 |] and confidential information as this matter deals with applications for a marijuana license issues, 6 || 2) to protect confidential and sensitive personal and/or business information, and 3) to protect 7 || disclosure of trade secrets and other confidential information resulting from Plaintiff's and Other 8 || Applicants’ investment of millions of dollars from the public and/or competitors. Such confidential 9 || and trade secret information is generally not known to competitors and not made available to the UO a 10 |] public. ° 11 Should the Parties’ or Other Applicants’ confidential information become available to the — 12 || public, it would result in a windfall for other businesses involved in providing similar services. In 13 || addition, it would place Plaintiff and Other Applicants at a disadvantage competitively because a 14 |] they could lose the edge they have over other similar businesses that have not made similar ~ 15 || investments in training, development of systems, and procedures. Moreover, it could lead to fraud □ 5 16 || and identity theft because Defendant and Other Applicants’ owners, members and other persons * 17 || provided personal financial information, which could lead to this information be used to harm 2 18 |] these persons’ personal interest. Lastly, some of the information may involve Defendant’s 19 || computer systems, including but not limited to information about its network, which could provide CO 20 | a path for hackers to use this information and compromise Defendant’s computer systems. Public 21 || disclosure of these materials would clearly harm the Parties, Other Applicants and other persons 22 || who provided financial and personal information. That type of knowledge could reasonably 23 |] negatively impact all involved. 24 25 26 27 28

ADS Ge hee veVvVve fF LUIVEIVILS Nhe LUI wr OF I rE ee

1 In light of the above, the Parties respectfully request the Court enter the proposed Protective 2 |} Order. 3 DATED: August 9, 2019 DATED: August 9, 2019 4 HOLLEY, DRIGGS, WALCH, AARON D. FORD (Attorney General) 5 FINE, PUZEY, STEIN & THOMPSON /s/ Michael R. Ayers /s/ David J. Pope 7 James W. Puzey, Esq. (NV Bar No. 5745) Steve Shevorski (Bar No. 8256) Michael Ayers, Esq. (NV Bar No. 10851) Ketan D. Bhirud (Bar No. 10515) 8 800 South Meadows Parkway, #800 Theresa M. Haar (Bar No. 12158) Y) 5 9 Reno, Nevada 89521 David J. Pope (Bar No. 8617) ” Robert E. Werbicky (Bar No. 6166) UO a 10 Attorneys for High Sierra Holistics Office of the Nevada Attorney General 2 555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 3900 Oe u Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 - — 12 Attorneys for State of Nevada, Department of oe 2 13 Taxation

«4 15 5 «16 a

z 18

I Ov 2» a Ts 2 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

I ee Oe er NN rN Ne ee

l PROTECTIVE AND INADVERTENT DISCLOSURE ORDER 2 Plaintiff, High Sierra Holistics (“Plaintiff”), and Defendant State of Nevada, Department 3 || of Taxation of “Defendant” individually, and collectively referred to as “the Parties” or singularly 4 || as “a Party”), having agreed to the entry of a Protective and Inadvertent Disclosure Order pursuant 5 || to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d), and 6 || the Court being fully advised, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 8 1. For the purposes of this Order, the following definitions shall apply: Y 9 a. Confidential Information: Generally, information subject to disclosure containing 10 || personal information, financial information, trade secrets or other confidential research, including, ° 11 | but not limited to, formulas, methods, or development plans, confidential business information 12 || such as marketing plans, customer lists, financial information, sales figures, advertising 13 |] expenditures, pricing plans, and balance sheets, supplier identities, business plans, license 14 |] agreements, computer system processes/security or other information which could put the ~ 15 || producing person or entity at a competitive or financial disadvantage if the information became 5 16 || known to the Receiving Party or other information reasonably believed to be confidential. 17 || Information, the whole of which is publicly available, should not be designated as “Confidential” 4 z 18 || or “Attorneys Eyes Only.” 19 b. CONFIDENTIAL Designation: Documents not previously disclosed to the public O 20 || should be designated “Confidential” when such documents contain confidential information that 21 || may be reviewed by the Receiving Party, but must be protected against disclosure to third parties. 22 c. ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY Designation: Documents not previously disclosed to 23 |] the public should be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” when such documents contain 24 || confidential information that 1) may only be reviewed by counsel for the Receiving Party who, or 25 || 2) may only be reviewed by agreed upon named representatives of the Receiving Party and their 26 || counsel and must be protected against disclosure to third parties. 27 d.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

High Sierra Holistics, LLC v. State of Nevada, Department of Taxation, (D. Nev. 2019).

High Sierra Holistics, LLC v. State of Nevada, Department of Taxation (High Sierra Holistics, LLC v. State of Nevada, Department of Taxation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.