McGuire v. Carey

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided August 24, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-00249·Unknown

Opinion

1 REBECCA L. MASTRANGELO, ESQ. 2 Nevada Bar No. 5417 ROGERS, MASTRANGELO, CARVALHO & MITCHELL 3 700 S. Third Street Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 4 Phone (702) 383-3400 Fax (702) 384-1460 5 rmastrangelo@rmcmlaw.com Attorneys for RE/MAX, LLC and 6 RE/MAX HOLDINGS, INC. 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 DISTRICT OF NEVADA (RENO) 9 PATRICK H. MCGUIRE, an individual ) and LISA ANN MCGUIRE, an individual, ) CASE NO. 3:20-cv-00249-RCJ-CLB 10 ) Plaintiffs, ) 11 ) vs. ) 12 ) ANNE MARIE CAREY, an individual, ) 13 CAREY TRUST, a testamentary trust, ) ANTONETTE D. SHAW, an individual, ) 14 MAXED PROFESSIONALS, LLC, a ) Nevada limited liability company; ) STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 15 RE/MAX, LLC, a Delaware limited ) liability company; and RE/MAX ) 16 HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware ) corporation; JOSEPH HENRY, in his ) 17 individual capacities; and THE CITY OF ) RENO, a municipal entity. ) 18 ) Defendants. ) 19 ____________________________________) 20 In order to protect the confidentiality of confidential information obtained by the parties 21 in connection with this case, the parties hereby agree as follows: 22 1. This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and other 23 valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information 24 for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than 25 prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and 26 information consist of, among other things, confidential business practices, or other confidential 27 research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy 28 rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may 1 be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, 2 case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate 3 the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately 4 protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are 5 permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of 6 trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and to serve the ends of justice, a 7 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that 8 information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 9 designate without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public 10 manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record in this case. 11 2. Any party or non-party may designate as “confidential” (by stamping the relevant 12 page or as otherwise set forth herein) any document including electronically stored information 13 (“ESI”) or responses to discovery which that party or non-party considers in good faith to contain 14 information involving trade secrets, or confidential business or financial information, subject to 15 protection under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Nevada law (“Confidential 16 Information”). Where a document or response consists of more than one page, the first page and 17 each page on which confidential information appears shall be so designated. 18 3. A party or non-party may designate information disclosed during a deposition or 19 in response to written discovery as “confidential” by so indicating in said response or on the 20 record at the deposition and requesting the preparation of a separate transcript of such material. 21 Additionally a party or non-party may designate in writing, within twenty (20) days after receipt 22 of said responses or of the deposition transcript for which the designation is proposed, that 23 specific pages of the transcript and/or specific responses be treated as “confidential” information. 24 Any other party may object to such proposal, in writing or on the record. Upon such objection, 25 the parties shall follow the procedures described in paragraph 11 below. After any designation 26 made according to the procedure set forth in this paragraph, the designated documents or 27 28 2 1 information shall be treated according to the designation until the matter is resolved according to 2 the procedures described in paragraph 11 below, and counsel for all parties shall be responsible 3 for marking all previously unmarked copies of the designated material in their possession or 4 control with the specified designation. 5 4. Confidential Information may be additionally designated “Confidential - 6 Attorneys Eyes Only” by counsel for the Producing Party for the purpose of identifying 7 particularly sensitive Confidential Information relating to current or prospective research and 8 development, technical documents relating to current or prospective products, financial 9 information (including, but not limited to, amount or source of any income, profits, losses, or 10 expenditures, sales information, and pricing information), marketing or business plans, and the 11 names or other information tending to reveal the identities of a party’s present or prospective 12 customers, vendors, listeners, or advertisers. 13 5. All information produced or exchanged in the course of this case (other than 14 information that is publicly available) shall be used by the party or parties to whom the 15 information is produced solely for the purpose of this case. 16 6. Each party or non-party that designates information or items for protection under 17 this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under 18 the appropriate standards. The Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts 19 of material, documents, items, or oral or written communications that qualify so that other 20 portions of the material, documents, items, or communications for which protection is not 21 warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or 22 routinized designations are not permitted under this Order, and designations which are shown to 23 be clearly unjustified or that have been made for an improper purpose (e.g. to unnecessarily 24 encumber the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses or burdens on the 25 other parties) may expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating 26 Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for 27 28 3 1 protection, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other Parties that it is withdrawing the 2 inapplicable designation. 3 7.

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

McGuire v. Carey, (D. Nev. 2020).

McGuire v. Carey (McGuire v. Carey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)