Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided January 24, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-00612·Unknown

Opinion

1 Jarrod L. Rickard, Bar No. 10203 Kara B. Hendricks, Bar No. 07743 jlr@skrlawyers.com hendricksk@gtlaw.com 2 Katie L. Cannata, Bar No. 14848 Jason K. Hicks, Bar No. 13149 klc@skrlawyers.com hicksja@gtlaw.com 3 SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD Kyle A. Ewing, Bar No. 014051 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 ewingk@gtlaw.com 4 Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Telephone: (702) 835-6803 10845 Griffith Peak Drive, Suite 600 5 Facsimile: (702) 920-8669 Las Vegas, Nevada 89135 Telephone: (702) 792-3773 6 David R. Zaro (admitted pro hac vice) Facsimile: (702) 792-9002 dzaro@allenmatkins.com 7 Joshua A. del Castillo (admitted pro hac vice) jdelcastillo@allenmatkins.com 8 Matthew D. Pham (admitted pro hac vice) mpham@allenmatkins.com 9 ALLEN MATKINS LECK GAMBLE MALLORY & NATSIS LLP 10 865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, California 90017-2543 11 Telephone: (213) 622-5555 Facsimile: (213) 620-8816 12 Attorneys for Receiver Geoff Winkler 13

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 15 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 16 17 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE Case No. 2:22-cv-00612-CDS-EJY COMMISSION, 18 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED PROTECTIVE Plaintiff, ORDER (REGARDING PRODUCTION OF 19 DOCUMENTS, INFORMATION, AND vs. THINGS BY ECO CAPITAL, INC.) 20 MATTHEW WADE BEASLEY, et al., 21 Defendants, 22 THE JUDD IRREVOCABLE TRUST, et al., 23 Relief Defendants. 24 25 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 1 I. REQUEST FOR STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER 2 A. Purposes and Limitations. 3 Discovery activity in this action is likely to involve the disclosure or production of 4 confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than in connection with this action (or any related or 6 ancillary proceedings) may be warranted. Accordingly, Geoff Winkler (the "Receiver"), the 7 Court-appointed receiver, on the one hand, and Eco Capital, Inc. ("Eco Capital"), a nonparty in 8 this action, on the other hand, hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following 9 stipulated protective order (the "Order"). 10 B. Acknowledgement of Procedure for Filing Under Seal. 11 The Receiver and Eco Capital acknowledge, as set forth in Section X.C, below, that this 12 Order does not entitle them to file protected material under seal; LR IA 10-5 and the directives in 13 Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006), set forth the procedures 14 that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from 15 the Court to file protected material under seal. 16 II. DEFINITIONS 17 1. "Action": The civil action captioned as SEC v. Beasley, et al. and bearing Case 18 No. 2:22-cv-00612-CDS-EJY, pending before this Court. 19 2. "Challenging Party": A Receiving Party that challenges a Designating Party's 20 designation of Discovery Material as Protected Material under this Order. 21 3. "CONFIDENTIAL" (with respect to Discovery Material): Material qualifying for 22 protection under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or material that contains or 23 reflects confidential, non-public, proprietary, commercially sensitive, and/or private information 24 of an individual or entity. 25 4. "Counsel" (without qualifier): House Counsel or Outside Counsel. 26 5. "Designating Party": A Producing Party that designates Discovery Material as 27 Protected Material. 28 1 6. "Discovery Material": Information or items, regardless of the medium or manner 2 in which they are generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, 3 transcripts, and tangible things), that are disclosed or produced by a Producing Party in response to 4 discovery in this Action. 5 7. "Expert": A person with specialized knowledge or experience in a matter pertinent 6 to the litigation who has been retained by a Party or its counsel to serve as an expert witness or 7 consultant in this Action (or any related or ancillary proceedings). 8 8. "House Counsel": Any attorney who is an employee of a Party. House Counsel 9 does not include Outside Counsel or any other outside counsel of a Party. 10 9. "Outside Counsel": Any attorney who is not an employee of a Party but is retained 11 to represent or advise that Party and has appeared in this Action (or any related or ancillary 12 proceedings) on behalf of that Party or is affiliated with a law firm which has appeared on behalf 13 of that Party. 14 10. "Party": A Producing Party or Receiving Party. 15 11. "Producing Party": Eco Capital. 16 12. "Professional Vendor": Any person or entity that provides litigation support 17 services (e.g., photocopying, videotaping, translating, preparing exhibits or demonstrations, and 18 organizing, storing, or retrieving data in any form or medium) to a Party, including such person or 19 entity's employees and subcontractors. 20 13. "Protected Material": Any Discovery Material that has been designated as 21 "CONFIDENTIAL" under this Order; provided, however, that notwithstanding the foregoing, 22 Protected Material does not include the following information relating to a money transaction 23 reflected on a bank statement or other financial record produced by a Producing Party: (a) the 24 identities of the parties to the transaction (i.e., the payor and payee), (b) the names and addresses 25 of the financial institutions involved in the transaction, along with the last four digits of the 26 applicable account numbers, (c) the date of the transaction, (d) the amount of the transaction, and 27 (e) any identifying number for the transaction (i.e. a wire transfer identifier). 28 1 14. "Receiving Party": The Receiver. 2 III. SCOPE 3 The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Protected Material, but also (a) any 4 information copied or extracted from Protected Material; (b) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or 5 compilations of Protected Material; and (c) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by the 6 Parties or their counsel that might reveal Protected Material. However, the protections conferred 7 by this Order do not cover the following information: (y) any information that is in the public 8 domain at the time of disclosure to the Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after 9 its disclosure to the Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this 10 Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (z) any 11 information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure, or obtained by the Receiving 12 Party after the disclosure, from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no 13 obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Notwithstanding the foregoing, any 14 materials produced by the Producing Party to the plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission in 15 connection with the above-entitled action, and subsequently shared with or obtained by the 16 Receiving Party, shall be deemed to be Protected Material. 17 Nothing in this Order shall be construed as preventing or restricting a Producing Party's 18 ability to disclose or use its Discovery Material for any purpose or precluding a Producing Party 19 from showing its Discovery Material to the person who prepared such material. 20 IV. DURATION 21 Even after the final discharge of the Receiver as the receiver or the termination of this 22 Action, the confidentiality obligations imposed on the Receiving Party by this Order for the benefit 23 of a Designating Party shall remain in effect unless otherwise waived in writing by the Designating 24 Party or ordered by the Court. 25 26 27 28 1 V. DESIGNATING PROTECTED MATERIAL 2 A. Manner and Timing of Designations.

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

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley, (D. Nev. 2023).

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Beasley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)