Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-01192/USCOURTS-ared-4_23-cv-01192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Declaratory Judgement

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

CENTRAL DIVISION

DWBI INVESTMENTS, LLC PLAINTIFF/

COUNTER- DEFENDANT

V. No. 4:23-cv-1192-DPM

SUTTER & GILLHAM, P.L.L.C.

V.

DAVID DENNIS; DENNIS FOOD

GROUP, LLC; LEPHIEW GIN

COMPANY, INC.; TYSON FOODS,

INC.; LEPHIEW DENNINGTON;

TYSON SALES AND DISTRIBUTION,

INC.; TYSON FRESH MEATS, INC.;

BENJAMIN MCCORKLE; BEACON

LEGAL GROUP, PLLC; TIMOTHY

DUDLEY; RICKEY HICKS; and GARY,

WILLIAMS, PARENTI, WATSON,

GARY & GILLESPIE, P.L.L.C.

ORDER

DEFENDANT/

COUNTERCLAIMANT/

CROSS-CLAIMANT

DEFENDANTS/

CROSS-DEFENDANTS

1. The Court has reviewed the conditionally sealed document,

Doc. 5. The agreement's confidentiality provision is not enough to

justify sealing. The motion has provided notice to the other signatories.

None have weighed in. And the account information for the proceeds

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 65 Filed 03/07/24 Page 1 of 3
account and litigation account can be redacted. The Court directs

DWBI Investments to file a redacted version of exhibit 1 to the

complaint on the public docket by 13 March 2024.

2. Motion for a protective Order and to file under seal, Doc. 29,

denied without prejudice and with directions. The Court directs Tyson

to send a copy of the settlement agreement and its proposed redacted

version of Doc. 9 to Little Rock chambers because the Court needs more

information about the agreement's terms and parties. Once it has

reviewed the agreement and proposed redaction, the Court will make

a decision about whether the agreement is confidential and whether

redaction is appropriate. Tyson need not renew its motion.

While reserving the issue of the settlement agreement's

confidentiality, the Court would welcome a proposed global protective

Order. Counsel should confer and email an agreed draft Order in Word

to chambers for review. The Order should incorporate Fed. R. Civ. P.

5.2's mandate for redaction, if practicable, before any filing under seal.

The Order should remain in effect no longer than one year after

litigation ends, not in perpetuity. And the Order should incorporate

the Court's preferred procedure for discovery disputes. See, e.g.,

Doc. 19 in Lauer v. Petit Jean Electric Cooperative Corp.,

Case No. 4:22-cv-777-DPM.

-2-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 65 Filed 03/07/24 Page 2 of 3
So Ordered.

<)5- -:

D.P. Marshall Jr.

United States District Judge

V&,\cJ io(

-3-

Case 4:23-cv-01192-DPM Document 65 Filed 03/07/24 Page 3 of 3