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.

Ancier v. Egan

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

November 4, 2015

GARTH ANCIER, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL F. EGAN, III; JEFFREY M. HERMAN; and MARK F. GALLAGHER, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION TO PUBLICLY FILE DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DOC. NO. 264

J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

On October 2, 2015, Plaintiff Garth Ancier ("Plaintiff") filed the instant Motion to file publicly Exhibits 4, 19-20, 23-25, Unredacted Exhibit 6, and Unredacted Portions of his Concise Statement of Facts and Memorandum in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 245 ("Motion"). Doc. No. 264. Defendants Jeffrey M. Herman ("Herman") and Michael F. Egan, III ("Egan") (collectively, "Defendants") filed Objections on October 13, 2015. Doc. Nos. 274, 275. Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(d), the court finds this matter suitable for disposition without a hearing. As set forth below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

II. BACKGROUND

In this action, Plaintiff asserts state law claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process against Egan and his former counsel, Herman and Mark F. Gallagher. Doc. No. 88, First Am. Compl. ("FAC"). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants filed a frivolous action against him in Egan v. Ancier, Civ. No. 14-00188 SOM-BMK (the "underlying action"), which falsely accused Plaintiff of sexually assaulting Egan in Hawaii in 1999. The underlying action was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after Plaintiff sought Rule 11 sanctions against Defendants. Plaintiff further alleges that in addition to lacking merit, the underlying action "was brought to smear, harass and severely injure Mr. Ancier as part of an avowed and very public campaign by Mr. Egan and Mr. Egan's counsel to... shake down other entertainment industry executives with threats of sexual assault charges." Doc. No. 88, FAC at 2.

A Protective Order was filed on February 18, 2015. Doc. No. 128. By the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks to publicly file documents in connection with his Motion for Summary Judgment that contain information either designated confidential or derived from documents that have been designated confidential pursuant to the Protective Order, and/or that contain information that may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. These documents include:

(1) Exhibit 4 - Excerpts from Herman's deposition (1) naming other alleged perpetrators of sexual abuse, and (2) with respect to other claimants, stating that Herman received monies as a result of pursuing similar sexual abuse claims;[1]
(2) Exhibit 19 - Email correspondence between Herman and a lawyer in Herman's law firm naming potential Egan defendants and discussing litigation strategy;
(3) Exhibit 20 - A July 17, 2014 letter to Herman from John Manly, newly-retained counsel for Egan, that discusses Egan's position regarding the breakdown of Herman's representation and the monetary amount of settlements obtained by Herman in other cases;
(4) Exhibit 23 - Email correspondence between Egan's mother and a lawyer in Herman's law firm discussing a separate criminal action and making an observation that the criminal action accelerated after certain action was taken in connection with the underlying action;
(5) Exhibit 24 - Email correspondence from a consultant or contractor retained by Herman to Herman, transmitting files;
(6) Exhibit 25 - Email correspondence from a lawyer in Herman's law firm confirming a conversation between Egan and Herman regarding litigation of the underlying action;
(7) Exhibit 6 - unredacted Egan deposition testimony which includes multiple questions concerning allegations in the Complaint in the underlying action, quotes from a Certificate of Merit that is sealed, see Doc. No. 116, pursuant to a court order dated February 3, 2015, see Doc. No. 114, and Egan's refusal to answer such questions; and
(8) Excerpts from Plaintiff's Concise Statement of Facts ("CSF") and Memo in Support ("MIS") of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment that summarize and/or refer to information contained in the exhibits at issue.

In addition, pursuant to paragraph 18 of the Protective Order, Plaintiff seeks a court order "declassifying" the above documents ...


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.