MaxRelief USA Inc v. O'Maley ( 2022 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Granted. SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO 1:06 PM, Dec 23, 2022 WESTERN DIVISION MAXRELIEF USA, INC., : Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-O0755 tiictimenciotesuce □ PLAINTIFF, : Judge Matthew W. McFarland Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz v. : JOHN O’MALEY D/B/A JOHN : MOTION TO SEAL EXHIBITS O’MALEY AND ASSOCIATES, 2 & 3 OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO : EXTEND THE DISCOVERY DEFENDANT. DEADLINE [DOC #43] Plaintiff MaxRelief USA, Inc. moves this Court to issue an order sealing Exhibits 2 and 3 of Plaintiff's Motion to Extend the Discovery Deadline [Doc #43; Page ID #127-136]. This motion is supported by the following memorandum of law. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Jason S. Nardiello Peter J. O’Shea (0086560) Katz Teller Brant & Hild 255 East Fifth Street, Suite 2400 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 721-4532 Facsimile: (513) 977-3401 Email: poshea@katzteller.com Jason S. Nardiello (pro hac vice) Nardiello Law PLLC 1341 W. Mockingbird Lane Suite 600W #143 Dallas, TX 75247 Telephone: (214) 974-5468 Email: jason@nardiello.law Attorneys for Plaintiff MaxRelief USA, Inc. MEMORANDUMIN SUPPORT PlaintiffMaxReliefUSA, Inc. (“MaxRelief”)moves to seal Exhibits 2 and3 ofits Motion to Extend theDiscoveryDeadline.[Doc#43; Page ID#127-136]. Exhibits 2 and 3 consist ofeight pagesof thetranscript ofthedeposition ofJohn O’Maley, which werefiled consistent with theCourt’s Orderthat MaxRelief’sMotion to Extend theDiscoveryDeadline was to include“thedeposition testimonyidentified duringthe[informal telephonediscovery] conference.”[Doc#42]. Mr. O’Maleyhas designated theentiretyofhis deposition transcript as “Confidential”underthe Stipulated ProtectiveOrderentered inthis action. [Doc#37]. AfterMaxRelieffiled its Motion to Extend theDiscoveryDeadline,counsel forMr. O’Maleydemanded that MaxReliefremoveExhibits 2 and3 from thedocket and, instead, provideExhibits 2 and 3to theCourt forin camera review.MaxRelief,however, is unawareofa process forsimply“removing”theExhibits from thedocket. Further, MaxReliefunderstood that its obligation, pursuant to theCourt’s Order[Doc. #42], was to filethedeposition testimony upon which its Motion toExtend theDiscoveryDeadlinerelied. In an effort to accommodateMr. O’Maley’sdemand, MaxReliefprepared a proposed joint motion toseal Exhibits 2 and 3, which it presented to Mr. O’Maley’s counsel on December 21. OnDecember22, 2022, Mr. O’Maley’s counsel declinedto join theproposedmotion to seal. In response,MaxRelief’s counsel requested that Mr. O’Maley’s counsel reconsiderwhether Exhibits 2 and 3 wereproperlydeemed “Confidential”and notedtheincongruityofMr. O’Maley’s counsel insistingthat Exhibits 2 and 3 wereprotected from disclosure, whilerefusing to join MaxRelief’s proposed motion to seal. Mr. O’Maley’s counsel again declinedto reconsiderits position that Exhibits 2 and 3—and,indeed, theentiretyofMr. O’Maley’s deposition transcript—were“Confidential.”Accordingly, MaxReliefis left in theposition of attemptingto complywith paragraph 8 oftheStipulated ProtectiveOrderby“seekingthe Court’s permission to filethedocument[ ] underseal”—but without Mr. O’Maley’s cooperation orsupport. Parties wishingto seal documents on theCourt’s docket must provide“compelling reasons”justifyingtheseal and must also demonstratethat theseal is “narrowlytailored to serve that reason.” TheProctor &GambleCo. v. Ranir, LLC, CaseNo. 1:17-CV-185, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131141, 2017 WL3537197 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 17, 2017) citing ShaneGrp., Inc. v. Blue Cross BlueShield, 825 F.3d 299, 306 (6th Cir.2016).As theCourt recognized inProctor & Gamble, protectingconfidential information that would otherwiseallowcompetitorsaninside look at acompany’s business strategies is acompellingreason. Thedeposition testimonyat issuehere concerns (1)theidentityofindividuals and companies who, accordingto Mr. O’Maley, voiced complaints about MaxRelief; and (2)the potential implications ofsuch complaints on Mr. O’Maley. Publicdisclosureofthis information could, accordingto Mr. O’Maley,1 providethepublicand potential competitorsinsight into his business operations. UndertheProtectiveOrder,anydocument orinformation designated as “Confidential” must bematerial that is protected from disclosure “bystatuteorcommon law,includingbut not limited to, confidential personal information, tradesecrets, orothersuch sensitivecommercial information that is not publiclyavailable.”[Doc#37 PAGEID#68]. Thenames and identityof salesandcontact information ofMr. O’Maleyconstitutes, accordingto Mr. O’Maley, such confidential and sensitive commercial information. 1ItisMr.O’Maleywhohasdesignatedtheentiretyofhisdepositiontranscript“Confidential”andwhoobjectsto thepublicdisclosureofExhibits2and3toMaxRelief’sMotiontoExtendDiscovery.MaxReliefdoesnotwaiveits rightundertheProtectiveOrdertodisputethe“Confidential”designationastoExhibits2and3oranyother materialsodesignatedbyMr.O’Maley. Accordingly, PlaintiffMaxReliefrespectfullymovesthat theCourt ordertheClerkofthe Court to seal Exhibits 2 and 3 ofPlaintiff’s Motion to ExtendtheDiscoveryDeadline[Doc#43; Page ID#127-136]. Respectfullysubmitted, /s/Jason S. Nardiello PeterJ. O’Shea(0086560) Katz TellerBrant &Hild 255 East Fifth Street, Suite2400 Cincinnati, OH45202 Telephone: (513)721-4532 Facsimile: (513)977-3401 Email: poshea@katzteller.com Jason S. Nardiello (prohacvice) Nardiello LawPLLC 1341 W. Mockingbird Lane Suite600W #143 Dallas, TX75247 Telephone: (214)974-5468 Email: jason@nardiello.law Attorneys for Plaintiff MaxRelief USA, Inc. CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE Iherebycertifythat acopyofthe foregoing was filed electronicallythis 22nd dayof December, 2022. Notice ofthis filingwill besent to all parties byoperation oftheCourt’s electronic filingsystem. /s/Jason S. Nardiello Jason S. Nardiello (pro hacvice) 4887-0831-4182,v.1