United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Western International Securities, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedFebruary 23, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-04119
StatusUnknown

This text of United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Western International Securities, Inc. (United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Western International Securities, Inc.) 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
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Western International Securities, Inc., (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM Document 70 Filed 02/23/23 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:761

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP UNITED STATES SECURITIES Joseph E. Floren, Bar No. 168292 AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 1 joseph.floren@morganlewis.com One Market Street Ariella O. Guardi (pro hac vice) 2 Spear Street Tower guardia@sec.gov San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Charles J. Kerstetter (pro hac vice) 3 Telephone: (415) 442-1391 kerstetterc@sec.gov Fax: (213) 612-2501 Jonathan A. Epstein (pro hac vice) 4 epsteinjo@sec.gov MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 175 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450 5 G. Jeffrey Boujoukos (pro hac vice) Chicago, Illinois 60604 jeff.boujoukos@morganlewis.com Telephone: (312) 353-7390 6 1701 Market Street Facsimile: (312) 353-7398 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Donald W. Searles (Cal. Bar No. 7 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 135705) Fax: (215) 963-5001 searlesd@sec.gov 8 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Los Angeles, California 90071 9 Jason S. Pinney (pro hac vice) Telephone: (323) 965-3998 jason.pinney@morganlewis.com Facsimile: (213) 443-1904 10 Andrew M. Buttaro (pro hac vice) andrew.buttaro@morganlewis.com 11 One Federal Street Attorneys for Plaintiff United States Boston, MA 02110-1726 Securities and Exchange Commission 12 Telephone: (617) 341-7700 Fax: (617) 341-7701 13 Attorneys for Defendant 14 WESTERN INTERNATIONAL SECURITIES, INC. 15 MURPHY COOKE LLP 16 PATRICK T. MURPHY, #178189 (patrick@murphycooke.com) 17 CHRISTOPHER COOKE, #142342 (ccooke@murphycooke.com) 18 533 Airport Blvd., Suite 400 Burlingame, CA 94010 19 Tel: (650) 401-2220

20 MARKUN ZUSMAN & COMPTON LLP JEFFREY K. COMPTON,#142969 21 (jcompton@mzclaw.com) NATHAN SMITH, #279124 22 (nsmith@mzclaw.com) DAVID J. SHINDER, #323499 23 (dshinder@mzclaw.com) 17383 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite A-380 24 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Tel: (310) 454-5900 25 Attorneys for Defendants 26 NANCY COLE, PATRICK EGAN, ANDY GITIPITYAPON, STEVEN 27 GRAHAM, AND THOMAS SWAN

28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MO BR OG CA KN IU, SL LEW LPIS & PROTECTIVE ORDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM SAN FRANCISCO Case 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM Document 70 Filed 02/23/23 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:762

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND Case No. 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5 Judge Otis D. Wright, II Plaintiff, Magistrate Alexander F. MacKinnon 6 v. 7 WESTERN INTERNATIONAL [PROPOSED] STIPULATED 8 SECURITIES, INC., NANCY COLE, PROTECTIVE ORDER1 PATRICK EGAN, ANDY 9 GITIPITYAPON, STEVEN GRAHAM, and THOMAS SWAN, 10 Defendants. 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 This Stipulated Protective Order is based substantially on the model protective 28 order provided under Magistrate Judge Alexander F. MacKinnon’s Procedures. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MO BR OG CA KN IU, SL LEW LPIS & 2 PROTECTIVE ORDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2:22-CV-04119-ODW-AFM SAN FRANCISCO Case 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM Document 70 Filed 02/23/23 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:763

1 1. 2 A. PURPOSES, AND LIMITATIONS 3 Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, 4 proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public 5 disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be 6 warranted. Accordingly, Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange 7 Commission (“SEC”), Defendants Western International Securities, Inc. (“WIS”), 8 Nancy Cole, Patrick Egan, Andy Gitipityapon, Steven Graham, and Thomas Swan 9 (“Individual Defendants” and collectively, the “Parties”) hereby stipulate to and 10 petition the court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order (“Order”). The 11 Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all 12 disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public 13 disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled 14 to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. 15

16 B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT 17 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 18 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 19 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 20 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 21 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 22 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 23 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 24 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MO BR OG CA KN IU, SL LEW LPIS & PROTECTIVE ORDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM SAN FRANCISCO Case 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM Document 70 Filed 02/23/23 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:764

1 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 2 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 3 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 4 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 5 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 6 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 7 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 8 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 9 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 10 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 11 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 12 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 13 record of this case. 14

15 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 16 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3, below, that this 17 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 18 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 19 be applied when a Party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 20 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 21 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 22 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 23 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 24 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 25 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 26 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 27 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 28 [PROPOSED] STIPULATED MO BR OG CA KN IU, SL LEW LPIS & 4 PROTECTIVE ORDER ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2:22-CV-04119-ODW-AFM SAN FRANCISCO Case 2:22-cv-04119-ODW-AFM Document 70 Filed 02/23/23 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:765

1 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 2 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 3 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 4 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 5 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause.

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)
United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Western International Securities, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-securities-and-exchange-commission-v-western-international-cacd-2023.