Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00954/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-00954-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 18:1964 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an

Arizona corporation, d/b/a

“RIPOFFREPORT.COM”; ED

MAGEDSON, an individual, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

WILLIAM “BILL” STANLEY, an

individual; et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-07-0954-PHX-GMS

ORDER

The Court is in receipt of Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt. # 254) filed on January

9, 2009, the Summary of Discovery Issues (Dkt. # 259) filed by Defendants/Crossclaimants

Robert Russo, QED Media Group, L.L.C., and Internet Defamation league L.L.C. (hereafter

Defendants) filed on January 14, 2009, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike that Summary as well

as Defendants Rule 26(A)(3) Disclosure (Dkt. #276). The Court is also in receipt of the

Defendants’ Motion to File Their Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel Under Seal (Dkt.

# 270) . This order resolves those motions.

Background

On December 30, 2008, the parties filed a Stipulation To Extend Deadline For

Resolution of Discovery Disputes and Submission of Disclosures Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. Rule 26(A)(3). In the February 15, 2008, Case Management Order (Dkt. # 175), the Court

Case 2:07-cv-00954-GMS Document 284 Filed 02/19/09 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

specifically ordered that “Absent extraordinary circumstances, the court will not entertain

fact discovery disputes after the deadline for completion of fact discovery . . . . Delay in

presenting discovery disputes for resolution is not a basis for extending discovery deadlines.”

Case Management Order at ¶ 6.b. Because the parties in their stipulated motion did not offer

any extraordinary circumstances that would justify an extension of discovery deadlines to

accommodate their delay in resolving their potential discovery disputes , the Court declined

to extend the deadlines (Dkt. # 246).

On January 9, the discovery deadline, Plaintiffs subsequently filed their Motion to

Compel Discovery (Dkt. # 254), Witness List (Dkt. # 256), and Exhibit List (Dkt. # 255).

Defendants filed their Second Supplemental Disclosure Statement (Dkt. # 252) on that same

date, but did not file their final Pretrial Disclosure Statement (Dkt. # 257) until four days

later--after the ensuing weekend. The following day the same Defendants filed a “Summary

Of Discovery Issues In Dispute” (Dkt. No. 259), which in essence amounts to their own

Motion to Compel. 

Two weeks later Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike both the Defendants’ Disclosure

Statement and its “Summary of Discovery Issues In Dispute.” (Dkt. # 276). Plaintiffs’ made

the motion based upon the late filing of the two documents, and upon the failure of the

“Summary of Discovery Issues” to comply with ¶ 6.a of the Case Management Order.

Plaintiffs are correct that the filings were both filed a few days past the deadline, and that

Defendants’ Summary of Discovery Issues is an attempt to bring a motion to compel after

the discovery deadline. Plaintiffs are also correct that Defendants’ “Summary of Discovery

Issues” is not in compliance with ¶ 6.a of the Case Management Order. 

The Court is disinclined to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion To Strike as it pertains to the

Defendants Rule 26 (A)(3) Disclosures (Dkt. # 276). Although the disclosure was filed

several days late, trial has not yet been set. Further, Defendants avow, and Plaintiffs do not

contest, that the disclosure did not contain information not previously disclosed to Plaintiffs.

Therefore, there is no prejudice to either party in allowing the disclosure to stand. This

Case 2:07-cv-00954-GMS Document 284 Filed 02/19/09 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

determination, however, does not preclude other challenges to the adequacy of the disclosure

should Defendants attempt to rely thereon. 

The Court would be more inclined to grant Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike as it pertains

to the Summary of Discovery Issues (Dkt. # 259) were it not for the fact that, as Defendants

quite correctly note in their response, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel also failed to comply with

¶ 6.a of the Case Management Order. That Order specifies “parties shall not file written

discovery motions without leave of court.” Plaintiffs had no such leave. The Case

Management Order further specifies that:

If any . . . discovery dispute arises, the parties shall submit (1)

a brief written summary of the dispute, not to exceed one page,

with explanation of the position taken by each party and (2) a

written certification that the counsel or the parties have

attempted to resolve the matter through personal consultation

and sincere effort as required by LRCiv 7.2(j) and have reached

an impasse. . . . Counsel for the parties may then telephone the

court to obtain a time for a telephone conference, and the court

may enter appropriate orders on the basis of the telephone

conference. The Court may order written briefing if it does not

resolve the dispute during the telephone conference. Any

briefing ordered by the court shall also comply with LRCiv

7.2(j).

 Plaintiffs not only failed to obtain leave of Court before filing their motion, they also failed

to follow the procedures set forth in the Case Management Order for seeking to compel

discovery.

Neither of the parties then are in compliance with the Court’s orders. The Court

suspects that, as Plaintiffs have indicated, they went to no small effort to timely file their

Motion to Compel together with their Witness and Exhibit Lists in a timely fashion. The

Court appreciates as much. Nevertheless, at least as to the Motion to Compel, Plaintiffs did

not do so in compliance with the Court’s order. Neither Plaintiffs in their Motion to Compel,

nor Defendants in their Summary of Discovery Issues indicate what “extraordinary

circumstances” would justify the Court’s extension of the discovery deadline to consider

their discovery motions that have not been timely or correctly brought. If the Court decides

to extend a small measure of understanding to Plaintiffs, so as not to completely preclude

Case 2:07-cv-00954-GMS Document 284 Filed 02/19/09 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

consideration of their Motion to Compel, it cannot very well deny the same small measure

of understanding to Defendants. 

Therefore, while the Court also denies Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike with respect to

Defendants’ “Summary of Discovery Issues,” it will not take independent action with respect

to either Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel, or Defendants’ “Summary of Discovery Issues.”

Rather, with respect only to the matters raised in the Motion to Compel and the Summary of

Discovery Issues, the Court will allow and directs the parties, prior to March 6, 2009 to

follow the procedures set forth in ¶ 6 of the Case Management Order. The Parties should

seek to resolve the matters on their own. If they successfully do so then the Court authorizes

an exchange of documents and other discovery to accommodate the Parties’ resolution of

their current disagreements. If the parties cannot resolve and document between themselves

the basis of such resolution prior to March 6, they are then authorized to telephone the Court

and obtain a time for a telephonic conference at which the disputes will be resolved. The

parties need file no additional documents with the Court beyond those already filed to assist

in resolving such disputes.

Defendants Motion to File Their Response To The Motion To Compel Under Seal

(Dkt. # 270) is granted. However, the motion apparently fails to take into account Ninth

Circuit law restricting the circumstances under which documents in the Court’s file may be

sealed.

Two standards are relevant. “First, a ‘compelling reasons’ standard applies to [the

sealing of] most judicial records.” Pintos v. Pac. Creditors Ass’n, 504 F.3d 792, 801 (9th

Cir. 2007) (citing Kamakana v. City & County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir.

2006); Foltz v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135-36 (9th Cir. 2003)).

“This standard derives from the common law right ‘to inspect and copy public records and

documents, including judicial records and documents.’ To limit this common law right of

access, a party seeking to seal judicial records must show that ‘compelling reasons supported

by specific factual findings outweigh the general history of access and the public policies

Case 2:07-cv-00954-GMS Document 284 Filed 02/19/09 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

favoring disclosure.’” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at 1178) (alteration and internal

citations omitted).

The second standard applies to discovery materials. “‘Private materials unearthed

during discovery’ are not part of the judicial record.” Id. (quoting Kamakana, 447 F.3d at

1180) (alteration omitted). The “good cause” standard set forth in Rule 26(c) of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure applies to orders rendering this category of documents confidential.

See id.; San Jose Mercury News, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 187 F.3d 1096, 1103 (9th Cir. 1999)

(“It is well-established that the fruits of pretrial discovery are, in the absence of a court order

to the contrary, presumptively public. Rule 26(c) authorizes a district court to override this

presumption where ‘good cause’ is shown.”) (citations omitted). 

The good cause standard also applies to the sealed filing of documents attached to

non-dispositive motions because those documents are often “‘unrelated, or only tangentially

related, to the underlying cause of action.’” Phillips v. G.M. Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1213

(9th Cir. 2002); see Pintos, 504 F.3d at 802. Documents attached to dispositive motions such

as motions for summary judgment, however, are governed by the compelling reasons

standard. See San Jose Mercury News, 187 F.3d at 1102; Foltz, 331 F.3d at 1136. The

parties are advised that the Court will insist on adherence to these standards in the future.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED taking no action on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Compel (Dkt.

# 254) and Defendants’ Summary of Discovery Issues (Dkt. # 259).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion to Strike (Dkt. # 276).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED granting Defendants’ Motion To File Under Seal

(Dkt. # 270).

/ / / 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:07-cv-00954-GMS Document 284 Filed 02/19/09 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing the Clerk of the Court to file under seal the

Lodged Proposed Opposition Brief (Dkt. # 271).

DATED this 19th day of February, 2009.

 

Case 2:07-cv-00954-GMS Document 284 Filed 02/19/09 Page 6 of 6