Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan C. Drexler

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 17, 2024
Docket2:23-cv-05102
StatusUnknown

This text of Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan C. Drexler (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan C. Drexler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan C. Drexler, (C.D. Cal. 2024).

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, Case No. 2:23-cv-05102-MCS-JC 11 Plaintiff, 12 STIPULATED PROTECTIVE v. ORDER1 13 RYAN C. DREXLER, 14 Defendant. 15 16 17 1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS 18 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 19 proprietary or private information for which special protection from public 20 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may 21 be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to 22 enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this 23 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to 24 discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends 25 only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment 26 under the applicable legal principles. 27 1 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 2 This action is likely to involve commercial, financial, and personal 3 information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for 4 any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential 5 and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, 6 confidential transcripts of testimony given during the investigation of this action, 7 financial information and account statements, or commercial information (including 8 information implicating privacy rights of third parties, such as (a) a Social Security 9 or tax-dentification number; (b) financial account numbers, including for a bank 10 account, credit card account, brokerage account, mortgage, or other loan; (c) the 11 home address and telephone number of any individual person; or (d) the birth date 12 of any individual person), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, 13 or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or 14 federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to 15 expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over 16 confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties 17 are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable 18 necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to 19 address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a 20 protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the 21 parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons 22 and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been 23 maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it 24 should not be part of the public record of this case. 25 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 26 The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this 27 Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information 1 and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court 2 to file material under seal. 3 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 4 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 5 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 6 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors 7 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 8 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 9 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 10 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 11 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 12 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 13 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 14 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 15 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. 16 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 17 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 18 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 19 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For 20 each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced 21 under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking 22 protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal 23 justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting 24 the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 25 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 26 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. 27 If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting 1 shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their 2 entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 3 D. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REDACTION OBLIGATIONS 4 REGARDLESS OF DESIGNATION 5 The parties acknowledge that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, except for 6 filings made under seal or as otherwise provided otherwise provided in that rule, in 7 an electronic or paper filing with the court that contains an individual’s social- 8 security number, taxpayer identification number, or birth date, the name of an 9 individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty 10 making the filing may include only: 11 (1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer- 12 identification number; 13 (2) the year of the individual’s birth; 14 (3) the minor’s initials; and 15 (4) the last four digits of the financial-account number. 16 The parties further acknowledge that, pursuant to L.R. 5.2-1, except for 17 filings made under seal or as otherwise provided in that rule, the filer shall redact 18 passport numbers and driver license numbers in their entirety, and shall ensure that 19 any document that contains a home address (except any proof of service filed as 20 required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(l)) shall include only the city and 21 state. 22 2. DEFINITIONS 23 2.1 Action: this pending federal lawsuit captioned SEC v. Ryan C. Drexler, 24 No. 2:23-cv-05102-MCS-RAO 25 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the 26 designation of information or items under this Order. 27 2.3 “CONFIDENTIAL” Information or Items: information (regardless of 1 protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and as specified above in 2 the Good Cause Statement. 3 2.4 Counsel: Outside Counsel and House Counsel (as well as their support 4 staff).

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

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Ryan C. Drexler, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/securities-and-exchange-commission-v-ryan-c-drexler-cacd-2024.