Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Sentinel Rock Wealth Management, LLC v. Hartley

United States District Court, D. Nevada

November 13, 2017

Sentinel Rock Wealth Management, LLC, a Nevada limited liability company, Plaintiff,
v.
Kenneth R. Hartley; Erisey Wealth Management, L.L.C., an Arizona limited liability company, Defendants.

          LAGOMARSINO LAW Andre M. Lagomarsino, Esq. CLARK HILL PLC Ryan J. Lorenz, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Molly M. Rezac, Esq. Marcus B. Smith, Esq. Attorneys for Defendants Kenneth Hartley, and Erisey Wealth Management, LLC

          STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER RE COX COMMUNICATIONS

         This matter came before the court on the stipulation for entry of protective order re Cox Communications. The court finds as follows:

         1. On November 1, 2016, counsel for Plaintiff caused a subpoena to be issued to the custodian of records for Cox Communications Arizona LLC (“Cox AZ”) for records that include the following:

a. All email sent and received from and to the address, joemoneyaz@cox.net and any other email addresses for the subscriber owning the cable, telephone, internet service account for the email address, joemoneyaz@cox.net and/or Kenneth Hartley, members of the Kenneth Hartley family or household, Erisey Wealth Management, LLC, or any business entity known to be owned or controlled by Kenneth Hartley, during the time period May 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017 (collectively, “Cox Emails”).
b. The telephone records of all phone calls made or received by Kenneth Hartley, during the time period May 1, 2014 through May 31, 2017 (“Cox Phone Records”).

(collectively, “Subpoenaed Documents”).

         2. On November 9, 2016, Mr. Hartley objected to the production claiming that it was overbroad and intrusive.

         3. The production of the Subpoenaed Documents requires consent under the Stored Communications Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

         4. The parties have agreed to narrow the scope of the subpoena to Subpoenaed Documents more likely to be directly relevant to the claims and defenses, but do not yet know whether search results will yield an unacceptable quantity (too great or too small) of results, as set forth in this order.

         Based upon the foregoing findings, the parties' stipulation, and subject to the provisions of the court's protective order entered on December 1, 2016 [ECF No. 20], and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED as follows:

         A. Defendant Hartley's consent as originator, addressee or intended recipient of electronic communication is given and hereby acknowledged under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(3) as to the Cox Emails. Defendant Hartley's consent as customer and subscriber under 18 U.S.C. § 2702(c)(2) is given and hereby acknowledged as to the Cox Phone Records.

         B. Cox AZ, together with CoxCom, LLC; Cox Advanced Services Arizona, LLC; Cox Arizona Telcom, LLC; Cox Business Services, LLC; Cox Data Center, LLC; Cox Media, LLC; Cox Search, Inc.; Cox Shared Services, LLC; Cox TMI Wireless, LLC; Cox Wireless Access, LLC (collectively, “Cox Entities”) shall produce the Cox Emails that are within the scope of the Cox Emails and which contain the following terms, either in the body of the Cox Emails, in the subject line, or in the addressee, sender, carbon copy or blind copy fields of the Cox Emails: “joemoneyaz@cox.net”; “joemoney”; “joemoneyaz”; “breach”; “covenant”; “Clarus”; “Sentinel”; “Bloomfield”; “Morris”; “Proud”; “Sparling”; “Bowman”; “Shugars”; “Wagar”; “Wilsey”; “Kersten”; “Lafia”; “Hodgman”; “Martin”; “Maynard”; “Niskanen”; “Reahm”; “Rector”; “Raneses”; “Foster”; “compete”; “competition”; “non-compete”; “non-competition”; “solicit”; “solicitation”; “non-solicit”; “non-solicitation”; “Erisey”; “resign”; “resignation”; “LPOA”; “power of attorney”; “power-of-attorney”; “POA”; “attorney-in-fact”; “attorney in fact”; “Beacon”; “Meadows”; “Bennett”; “Blankenburg”; “Blyth”; “Shelley”; “Fox”; “Gannatti”; “Noel”; “Navellier”; “Schott”; “Serio”; “Sparks”; “Toledo”; Treacy”; “Walsh”; “Becker”; “Benjes”; “Hale”; “Lipkind”; “Nejork”; “Navon”; “Serio”; “Steinberg”; “Thomakkara”; “Rilus”; “Vlad”; “Rossi”; “Andresen”; “Marchesi”; “Moretti”; “Regal”; “Flynn”; “Davenport”; “Robichaud”; “Alta-Trust”; “Ponder”; “Salt River”; “Johnson”; “Wolfpoint”; “Levanti”; “Kadish”; “Reichman”; “Halopoff”; “Symcox”; “Davey”; “Melich”; “Riley”; “Lenz”; “Frydenlund”; “Ernst”; “Brutinel”; “Lewis”; “Merhege”; “pipeline”. The search terms will be “non-case-specific, ” meaning that the search will be conducted in such a way as to capture results whether a letter of a search term is capitalized or not.

         C. The search terms above are without prejudice to Plaintiff's further request for additional searches in the event that the searches result in no or reasonably too few results. Upon motion and showing of cause, the Plaintiff may ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.