Mayorga v. Ronaldo

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Kathryn Mayorga, Case No.: 2:19-cv-00168-JAD-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 5 v. Recommendation and Denying Motions to Intervene and for Preliminary Injunction 6 Cristiano Ronaldo, [ECF Nos. 168, 176, 193] 7 Defendant

8 This case, initially brought to challenge the validity of a settlement agreement that 9 plaintiff Kathryn Mayorga and defendant Cristiano Ronaldo negotiated over a decade ago, has 10 devolved into a dispute concerning the use of allegedly hacked documents that plaintiff’s 11 attorney obtained from “Football Leaks,” a website that has released troves of controversial data 12 about the world’s soccer teams and players. Plaintiff’s counsel disclosed hundreds of these 13 documents to the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (Metro) in an attempt to re-open a 14 criminal case against Ronaldo for the alleged sexual assault of Mayorga in 2009. In November 15 2021, Metro informed counsel for the parties that it intended “to release the investigative file 16 pertaining to [the alleged assault] to The New York Times.”1 Both parties objected to that 17 release and initiated a flurry of motion practice to keep Metro from handing over the file: 18 Ronaldo filed a motion for a protective order “barring [Metro] from producing its investigative 19 file”; Mayorga moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent disclosure, concerned that a 20 protective order could not bind Metro or The New York Times; and The Times moved to 21 intervene to oppose the parties’ motions.2 22

23 1 ECF No. 168 at 3. 2 ECF No. 161; ECF No. 168; ECF No. 176. 1 On March 11, 2022, the magistrate judge denied Ronaldo’s motion for a protective order, 2|| explaining that “the protective order in this lawsuit does not bar [Metro] from disseminating its 3]| criminal investigative file.”? The magistrate judge also recommends denying as moot Mayorga’s preliminary-injunction motion and The New York Times’s motion to intervene, finding that “all 5|| participants came to agree that the Eighth Judicial District Court—rather than this [c]ourt— 6}| should decide whether [Metro] is obligated by the [Nevada Public Records Act] to release its file.’* Indeed, Metro has already filed a state-court petition regarding The New York Times’s 8]| public-records request.° The deadline for any party to object to that recommendation was March 91/25, 2022, and no party filed anything or asked to extend the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is 10]| required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are filed.” Having reviewed the report and recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, andI do. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 193] is ADOPTED in its entirety. For the reasons stated in that report and recommendation, 14|| Mayorga’s preliminary-injunction motion [ECF No. 168] and The New York Times’s motion to 15]| intervene [ECF No. 176] are DENIED as moot.

USS. Dist Ige Kong Bows 17 Aprils, 2022 18 19

Id. at 9. Id. 22 © Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 USS. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003).