Wood v. Carl's Jr. et al, No. 2:2020cv02329 - Document 58 (D. Nev. 2021)

Court Description: ORDER Denying 57 Motion for Protective Order without prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler on 10/13/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS)

Download PDF
Wood v. Carl's Jr. et al Doc. 58 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 57 is DENIED without prejudice for failure to follow Local Rule 26-6(c). J. BRUCE ALVERSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 1339 KARIE N. WILSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7957 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS 6605 Grand Montecito Pkwy, Ste. 200 Las Vegas, NV 89149 702-384-7000 Phone 702-385-7000 Fax Attorneys for Defendants Carl’s Jr. Restaurants LLC, CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., CKE Restaurants, Inc. and Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA 9 HOLLY MARIE WOOD, LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS 10 11 CASE NO: 2:20-cv-2329-APG-BNW Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 CARL’S JR., operated and owned by BTO INVESTMENTS, a Delaware corporation; S.L INVESTMENTS, a Nevada corporation; CKE RESTAURANTS, INC., a Delaware Corporation; CARL’S JR. RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC., a foreign corporation; RUCEY MOLINA CRUZ, an individual; DOES 1-10, inclusive; ROE CORPORATIONS/ ENTITIES 1-10 inclusive, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Defendants. __________________________________________ DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER 21 COME NOW Defendants CARL’S JR. RESTAURANTS LLC, CKE RESTAURANTS, 22 INC., CKE RESTAURANTS HOLDINGS, INC., CARL KARCHER ENTERPRISES, INC. 23 (collectively, “CKE”), BTO INVESTMENTS, and S.L. INVESTMENTS, by and through their 24 respective counsel of record, and hereby file this Joint Motion for Protective Order. This Motion 1 KNW 27080 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 2 of 7 1 is made and based upon the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities submitted in 2 support hereof. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 3 4 LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 STATEMENT OF FACTS 5 Plaintiff claims Defendants are in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 6 based on alleged discrimination arising from the sexual harassment, sexual assault, and battery of 7 Plaintiff by Defendant Rucey Cruz. Plaintiff Holly Marie Wood began her employment at Carl’s 8 Jr. located at 1440 West Cheyenne Avenue in North Las Vegas, Nevada in August 2018. 9 Plaintiff claims soon after her hire date, another Carl’s Jr. employee, 33-year-old Rucey Molina 10 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS I. Cruz, sexually harassed and assaulted her. 11 It is Defendants’ position that relevant documentation and discovery sought in this action 12 requires the production of certain confidential, business, commercial, personnel, and financial 13 information, as well as other confidential information, and that Defendants have a legitimate 14 need to protect the confidentiality of such information. Plaintiff specifically requested that 15 Defendants produce a copy of the applicable Franchise Agreement between CKE and S.L. 16 Investments, Inc., (subsequently assigned to BTO Investments). Defendants have objected to the 17 production of this document until such time that an appropriate Protective Order is entered to 18 protect Defendants’ confidential and proprietary information. Defendants have proposed and 19 agreed to a Stipulated Protective Order, but Plaintiff will not agree. 20 In Plaintiff’s Second Supplemental 26(a)(1) Disclosure, she produced a sample franchise 21 agreement titled “Sample ‘Form of Carl’s Jr. Restaurant Franchise Agreement’ ‘Carl’s Jr. 22 Restaurant Franchise Agreement’ available” on the internet. 1 While this may be a “sample” 23 franchise agreement, the actual Franchise Agreement between CKE and S.L. Investments, Inc. 24 1 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/919628/000091962812000005/cke-05212012_ex102x10q.htm 2 KNW 27080 LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 3 of 7 1 (BTO Investments), discusses specific terms including the franchise fee, royalty fees, advertising 2 and promotion obligations, and ownership interests as included in Appendix A through D of the 3 agreement. The sample agreement produced by Plaintiff was not executed and the appendixes 4 regarding fees and ownership interests are blank. Defendants therefore seek entry of a Protective 5 Order to prevent the actual Franchise Agreement and Appendixes and other confidential 6 information from being publicly available or distributed, as necessary to protect Defendants’ 7 proprietary and financial information. 8 II. ARGUMENT 9 Courts generally recognize a right to inspect and copy public records and documents, 10 including judicial records and documents. Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 11 (1978). There is a strong “presumption in favor of access to court records.” Foltz v. State Farm 12 Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 331 F.3d 1122, 1135 (9th Cir. 2003). The presumption of access “promotes 13 the public’s understanding of the judicial process and of significant public events.” Murname v. 14 Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 2015 WL 5638224, at *1 (D. Nev. Sept. 24, 2015) (citing 15 Kamakana v. City and Cty. Of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). 16 The common law right of access is, however, not absolute and is premised upon a 17 specific rationale that should guide its application. Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598. The United States 18 District Court in Nevada has held that it is “well-established that the court has the authority to 19 shield proprietary information related to the ongoing operations of a business from public 20 review.” Selling Source v. Red River Ventures, 2011 WL 1630338, at *1 (D. Nev. Apr. 29, 21 2011). “Where the material includes information about proprietary business operations, a 22 company’s business model or agreements with clients, there are compelling reasons to seal the 23 material because possible infringement of trade secrets outweighs the general public interest in 24 understanding the judicial process.” Id. at *6. 3 KNW 27080 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 4 of 7 1 The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has adopted the Restatement's definition of “trade 2 secret.” Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 727 F.3d 1214, 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2013), citing Clark v. 3 Bunker, 453 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1972). Under this definition, a trade secret is “any 4 formula, pattern, device or compilation of information which is used in one’s business, and 5 which gives him an opportunity to obtain an advantage over competitors who do not know or use 6 it.” Id. (quoting Restatement (First) of Torts § 757, cmt. b (1939)). The First Restatement states: 7 An exact definition of a trade secret is not possible. Some factors to be considered in determining whether given information is one’s trade secret are: (1) the extent to which the information is known outside of his business; (2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in his business; (3) the extent of measures taken by him to guard the secrecy of the information; (4) the value of the information to him and to his competitors; (5) the amount of effort or money expended by him in developing the information; (6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others. 8 9 LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS 10 11 12 Id. Defendants maintain that the information sought and discovery to be sought meets the factors 13 of the Restatement. 15 A. The Specific Terms of Defendants’ Franchise Agreement are Proprietary and Not Readily Available nor Accessible to the Public Satisfying the First, Second, and Third Factors of the Restatement 16 The Franchise Agreement and relevant Appendixes between CKE and S.L. Investments 17 (subsequently assigned to BTO Investments) contains confidential and financial information that 18 is not readily available nor accessible to the public. During discussions regarding the proposed 19 Stipulated Protective Order, Plaintiff claimed that Carl’s Jr. Franchise Agreement was not 20 confidential and could be accessible to the public on the internet. On September 9, 2021, Plaintiff 21 served her Second Supplemental List of Witnesses and Production of Documents which included 22 a “sample” form of Carl’s Jr. Restaurant Franchise Agreement. Notably, the sample agreement 23 disclosed by Plaintiff was blank and did not include specific information regarding franchise and 24 royalty fees, advertising and promotion obligations, nor ownership interests. 14 4 KNW 27080 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 5 of 7 1 The specific terms of the subject agreement are not available to the general public, 2 making the agreement de facto guarded. The only parties privy to the specific financial terms and 3 obligations of the Franchise Agreement are the parties identified within that agreement, 4 specifically the Defendants. If the specific Franchise Agreement were available on the internet, 5 then Plaintiff’s request for production of that document seems unwarranted and Plaintiff would 6 arguably have produced the specific agreement rather than a “sample.” 7 therefore asked that a Stipulated Protective Order be entered in this case, limiting the 8 dissemination of this information to those parties and designated representatives involved in this 9 litigation. Defendants seek to maintain the confidential nature of this agreement and the financial LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS 10 Defendants have information contained therein, and therefore request that a Protective Order be entered. 12 B. The Financial Information Contained Within the Franchise Agreement is Valuable to Defendants, Was Based on Negotiations Between Defendants, and Could be Easily Acquired by Others Without a Protective Order 13 The subject Franchise Agreement includes terms regarding the details of the contract 14 between CKE and S.L. Investments (subsequently transferred to BTO Investments), such as fees 15 and obligations of each participating party, including specific financial information and 16 obligations. This information is unquestionably valuable to Defendants and could potentially be 17 valuable to Defendants’ competitors by allowing them specific information as to franchise and 18 royalty fees and specific obligations. Further, the subject Franchise Agreements and subsequent 19 Assignment Agreement are the result of time, negotiations, and financial investment by 20 Defendants. If this information was disclosed without appropriate protection, it could prejudice 21 Defendants in future negotiations or agreements with other, unrelated entities. Investments and 22 franchise ventures are aggressive business environments and with companies constantly 23 competing for the best deal, and confidentiality is an invaluable element. Once publicly 24 available, Defendants would have no recourse or way to subsequently protect their financial 11 5 KNW 27080 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 6 of 7 1 information. Defendants have therefore met the remaining factors identified in the First 2 Restatement and request that a Protective Order be entered before Defendants are required to 3 provide the specific Franchise Agreement and related assignment or franchise documents. 4 III. 5 Based upon the foregoing, Defendants respectfully requests the instant motion be granted 6 and a Protective Order be entered to protect Defendants’ confidential and proprietary franchise 7 and financial information. 8 Dated this 12th day of October 2021 Dated this 12th day of October 2021 9 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 15 ____________________________________ KARIE N. WILSON, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7957 6605 Grand Montecito Parkway, Suite 200 Las Vegas, NV 89149 702-384-7000 Phone 702-385-7000 Fax Attorneys for Defendants Carl’s Jr. Restaurants LLC, CKE Restaurants Holdings, Inc., CKE Restaurants, Inc. and Carl Karcher Enterprises, Inc. /s/ Rachel L. Wise____________________ ROBERT S. LARSEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7785 rlarsen@grsm.com RACHEL L. WISE, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 12303 rwise@grsm.com 300 S. 4th Street Suite 1550 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for Defendant SL Investments 16 Dated this 12th day of October 2021 17 LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 18 /s/ Jesselyn De Luna___________________ JOSH COLE AICKLEN, ESQ. Nevada Bar No. 7254 josh.aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com JESSELYN DE LUNA, ESQ. Nevada Bar No.15031 Jesselyn.DeLuna@lewisbrisboi.com 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Attorneys for Defendants Carl’s Jr. and BTO Investments, Inc. LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 10 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS CONCLUSION 11 12 13 14 19 20 21 22 23 Order IT IS ORDERED that ECF No. 57 is DENIED without prejudice for failure to follow Local Rule 26-6(c). IT IS SO ORDERED DATED: 10:27 am, October 13, 2021 BRENDA WEKSLER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 6 KNW 27080 Case 2:20-cv-02329-APG-BNW Document 57 Filed 10/12/21 Page 7 of 7 1 2 I certify that on the 12th day of October, 2021, service of the above and foregoing 3 DEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER was made by 4 electronically filing a true and correct copy of the same to each party addressed as follows: 5 Paul S. Padda, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 10417 psp@paulpaddalaw.com Tony L. Abbatangelo, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 3897 tony@paulpaddalaw.com PAUL PADDA LAW, PLLC 4030 S. Jones Boulevard Unit 30370 Las Vegas, Nevada 89173 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 6 7 8 9 LAWYERS 6605 GRAND MONTECITO PKWY STE 200 LAS VEGAS, NV 89149 (702) 384-7000 10 ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS CERTIFICATE OF ELECTRONIC SERVICE 11 12 13 14 15 16 Josh Cole Aicklen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7254 josh.aicklen@lewisbrisbois.com Jesselyn De Luna, Esq. Nevada Bar No.15031 Jesselyn.DeLuna@lewisbrisboi.com LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH 6385 S. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 600 Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Attorneys for Defendants BTO Investments, Inc. Robert S. Larsen, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 7785 rlarsen@grsm.com Rachel L. Wise, Esq. Nevada Bar No. 12303 rwise@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 300 S. 4th Street Suite 1550 Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 Attorneys for S.L. Investments 17 18 _________________________________________ Employee of ALVERSON TAYLOR & SANDERS 19 20 k:\z-client\27080\pleadings\mtn protective order.docx 21 22 23 24 7 KNW 27080

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.