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

District Court, C.D. California·Decided September 29, 2023·No. 2:22-cv-04119·Unknown

Opinion

1 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP UNITED STATES SECURITIES Joseph E. Floren, Bar No. 168292 AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 2 joseph.floren@morganlewis.com One Market Street Ariella O. Guardi (pro hac vice) 3 Spear Street Tower guardia@sec.gov San Francisco, CA 94105-1596 Timothy Leiman (pro hac vice) 4 Telephone: (415) 442-1391 leimant@sec.gov Fax: (213) 612-2501 Charles J. Kerstetter (pro hac vice) 5 kerstetterc@sec.gov MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP Jonathan A. Epstein (pro hac vice) 6 G. Jeffrey Boujoukos (pro hac vice) epsteinjo@sec.gov jeff.boujoukos@morganlewis.com 175 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1450 7 1701 Market Street Chicago, Illinois 60604 Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921 Telephone: (312) 353-7390 8 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 Facsimile: (312) 353-7398 Fax: (215) 963-5001 Donald W. Searles (Cal. Bar No. 9 135705) MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP searlesd@sec.gov 10 Jason S. Pinney (pro hac vice) 444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 jason.pinney@morganlewis.com Los Angeles, California 90071 11 Andrew M. Buttaro (pro hac vice) Telephone: (323) 965-3998 andrew.buttaro@morganlewis.com Facsimile: (213) 443-1904 12 One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 13 Telephone: (617) 341-7700 Attorneys for Plaintiff United States Fax: (617) 341-7701 Securities and Exchange Commission 14 Attorneys for Defendant SECURITIES, INC. 16 MURPHY COOKE LLP 17 Patrick T. Murphy, #178189 (patrick@murphycooke.com) 18 Christopher Cooke, #142342 (ccooke@murphycooke.com) 19 533 Airport Blvd., Suite 400 Burlingame, CA 94010 20 Tel: (650) 401-2220

Jeffrey K. Compton, #142969 22 (jcompton@mzclaw.com) Nathan Smith, #279124 23 (nsmith@mzclaw.com) 17383 W. Sunset Blvd., Suite A-380 24 Pacific Palisades, CA 90272 Tel: (310) 454-5900 25 Attorneys for Defendants ANDY GITIPITYAPON, STEVEN

28 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 4 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND Case No. 2:22-cv-04119-WLH-JC EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 5

Plaintiff, 6 AMENDED STIPULATED 7 v. PROTECTIVE ORDER 8 W SEE CS UT RE IR TN IE I SN , T INE CR .N , NAT AI NO CN YA CL OLE, 9 P GA ITT IR PII TC YK A E PG OA NN , , S A TN EVD EY N GRAHAM, [ TC OH PA AN RG AE GS R M AA PD HE S B 3 Y & C 5O .4U (BR )]T and THOMAS SWAN, 10

Defendants. 11 12 13

28 1 1. 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”) (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. 16 This action is likely to involve trade secrets, customer and pricing lists and 17 other valuable research, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or 18 proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from 19 use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such 20 confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other 21 things, confidential business or financial information, information regarding 22 confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or 23 commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third 24 parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be 25 privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court 26 rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of 27 information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of 28 discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep 1 confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of 2 such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling 3 at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such 4 information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information 5 will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so 6 designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, 7 non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public 8 record of this case. 9 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL 10 11 The Parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 13.3, below, that this 12 Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil 13 Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will 14 be applied when a Party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. 15 There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial 16 proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, 17 good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and 18 County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006), Phillips v. Gen. Motors 19 Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002), Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, 20 Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders 21 require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling 22 reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with 23 respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere 24 designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL does not— 25 without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the 26 material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or 27 otherwise protectable—constitute good cause.

28 1 Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then 2 compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the 3 relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. 4 See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n., 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each 5 item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under 6 seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must 7 articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for 8 the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence supporting the application to 9 file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. 10 Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in 11 its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If 12 documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only 13 the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document, shall 14 be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety 15 should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 16 2. DEFINITIONS 17 2.1 Action: the civil enforcement action captioned SEC v.

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

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

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