Ademiluyi v. Phillips
2:14-cv-00507
D. Nev.Mar 26, 2015Background
- This action arises from an alleged date rape in a hotel suite during an NBA mid-year conference in 2012.
- Plaintiff Ademiluyi and Defendant Phillips are attorneys and parties to a civil action with multiple asserted claims in Nevada federal court.
- Plaintiff alleges two counts of sexual battery and additional claims including malicious prosecution and various torts related to the litigation in Las Vegas.
- Defendant sought a protective order regarding his phone records; the motion followed a prior order directing negotiation of a stipulated protective order.
- Judge Hoffman granted Defendant’s protective order with two changes, and Plaintiff challenged that ruling by filing an Objection that the court overruled.
- The court held the August 5, 2014 order was not contrary to law and allowed sealing of confidential materials with procedures to unseal when relevant.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the protective order was proper under Rule 26(c) and good cause. | Ademiluyi argues no good cause was shown for restricting disclosures. | Phillips contends good cause exists to protect privacy and business interests. | Yes; order proper and protective order affirmed. |
| Whether the objection was timely and properly brought under LR IB 3-1. | Objection should challenge the specific August 5 order. | Objection timing compliance and scope sufficient. | Objection timely enough to be considered; challenged order upheld. |
| Whether the protective order’s scope to seal phone-number portions was appropriate. | Plaintiff claims overbreadth and lack of particularized harm. | Protective order tailored to privacy and business concerns; feasible modification for relevant numbers. | Properly limited; modification possible if relevant numbers arise. |
Key Cases Cited
- San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. United States Dist. Ct. (San Jose), 187 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (presumptively public discovery; good cause may justify protective order)
- Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984) (broad discretion to protect confidential materials)
- Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172 (9th Cir. 2006) (standards for sealing and unsealing under protective orders)
- United States v. Ressam, 593 F.3d 1095 (9th Cir. 2010) (clear error standard and review of factual findings)
- Grimes v. City & County of San Francisco, 951 F.2d 236 (9th Cir. 1991) (pretrial orders under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) are not subject to de novo review)
- Hunt v. National Broadcasting Co., 872 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1989) (clarifies incorrect legal standard or overlooked elements can render decision contrary to law)
- Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989) (illustrates delegation of administrative tasks to magistrate judges)