Court filing
MOTION for Leave to File text messages under seal by SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA — Agent Fee Litigation (Dkt. 63)
Summary
Plaintiff Sport & Wheat CPA PA's motion to file exhibits under seal, dated June 30, 2020, in Sport & Wheat CPA PA v. ServisFirst Bank Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-5425-TKW-HTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Pensacola Division. Under Loc. R. 5.5(C), it seeks leave to file text messages between two Synovus employees and a Sport & Wheat principal that are at issue in Synovus's motion to terminate its deposition, ECF No. 52, set for hearing July 9. The motion cites the privacy of the individuals involved and the accountant-client privilege under Fla. Stat. § 90.5055, and states that Synovus refused to consent. It also asks the court for instruction on the redacted public filing required by Loc. R. 5.5(D).
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
SPORT & WHEAT CPA PA,
a Florida corporation, individually and
on behalf of a class of similarly situated
businesses and individuals,
Plaintiff,
Case No. 3:20-cv-5425-TKW-HTC
v.
SERVISFIRST BANK INC.;
SYNOVUS BANK;
THE FIRST, A NATIONAL
BANKING ASSOCIATION; and
TRUIST BANK,
Defendants.
PLAINTIFF SPORT & WHEAT’S
MOTION TO FILE EXHIBITS UNDER SEAL
Sport & Wheat moves for leave to file certain exhibits under seal. This
motion is in accordance with Loc. R. 5.5(C).
The exhibits are text messages that are at issue in connection with Synovus’s
motion to terminate its own deposition, ECF No. 52. This motion is set for hearing
on July 9. Sport & Wheat will deal with the merits of that motion in a separate brief;
suffice it to say, Sport & Wheat does not agree with what Synovus has said there or
what Synovus did at the deposition—namely, Synovus walked out.
1
Synovus moves to terminate the deposition, asserting a basis under Rule
30(d). In reality, 100% of the reason Synovus walked out is over questions relating to
these text messages that two of its employees exchanged with a principal in Sport &
Wheat. The word “text” or “texts” appears on practically every single page of the
motion other than those that have nothing to do with the deposition itself. Synovus
complains of “redactions,” Mot. at 4, that Sport & Wheat supposedly made from
various texts, and also complains that the texts lacked “context,” id. at 4, n.5.
Synovus has all of those texts which were used with the witness at the
deposition (and indeed, since these are bank employees writing to customers in the
course of their jobs, has always had access to them). But so that there is no
confusion about what documents are at issue or what was done at the deposition,
Sport & Wheat would like to file, under seal, the complete set of text messages that
its counsel had in his possession at the time Synovus’s deposition was taken.
Synovus has made some very extreme attacks on Sport & Wheat and its counsel. It
is essential that the Court have access to these documents, if it wants, so that it can
judge for itself if Sport & Wheat, or its lawyers, engaged in the extreme misconduct
that Synovus asserts it did. Among other things, the Court should see what was
“redacted” and why that was done. Sport & Wheat has a right to defend itself.
2
Sport & Wheat seeks to file this full set of texts under seal for a couple of
related reasons. Foremost among them is the privacy of the Sport & Wheat
employee, the two Synovus employees, and the people they were discussing—none
of whom likely anticipated that their private text messages would wind up on the
public docket. Among these texts are references to personal matters, including
some significant medical news about third persons, and some texts which may not
paint the bank employees in the best light. Sport & Wheat has no interest in
embarrassing any individual. This case is about fair compensation and that is all.
Also, there are discussions of private financial matters of the mutual clients
of both Synovus and Sport & Wheat. Sport & Wheat is obligated under Fla. Stat.
§ 90.5055, the accountant-client privilege, to safeguard its clients’ information from
public disclosure. Filing under seal will allow the Court to judge the merits of
Synovus’s motion without injuring Sport & Wheat’s own customers.
Finally, Sport & Wheat would like the Court to understand that it has
conferred with Synovus on this motion and been rebuffed. Initially, Synovus wanted
these text messages; that’s why it walked out of the deposition, and indeed it
claimed, incorrectly, in its recent motion that “plaintiffs’ counsel . . . said he would
send the unredacted documents” the very day after the deposition, Mot. at 12, n.7.
3
Today, however, Synovus stated that it saw no purpose in filing the same texts with
the Court under seal and refused to consent to this motion.
Sport & Wheat does not understand the position flip. If Synovus intends to
accuse Sport & Wheat of malfeasance in connection with taking this deposition,
then it ought to agree the Court should see the evidence. The fact that Synovus did
not attach even one of these disputed documents to its own motion is very telling.
Sport & Wheat is aware of the portion of Loc. R. 5.5(D) which states that,
where feasible, a redacted version of a sealed document must be filed on the public
docket. Sport & Wheat asks that the Court provide instruction on complying with
this rule at or after the July 9 hearing, and asks that it be relieved of compliance
until the Court issues an order.
In conclusion:
1. Sport & Wheat seeks leave to file text messages involving two Synovus
employees under seal.
2. Sport & Wheat asks the Court to provide instruction relating to Loc.
R. 5.5(D) at or after the July 9 hearing.
Sport & Wheat appreciates the Court’s consideration.
4
Dated: June 30, 2020 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ William F. Cash III
Virginia M. Buchanan
(Fla. Bar No. 793116)
Matthew D. Schultz (Fla. Bar No. 640328)
William F. Cash III (Fla. Bar No. 68443)
LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS,
MITCHELL, RAFFERTY & PROCTOR,
P.A.
316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
Pensacola, FL 32502
Phone: 850-435-7059
Email: bcash@levinlaw.com
/s/ John S. Wirt
John S. Wirt, Esq. (Fla. Bar No. 117640)
Pamela Cocalas Wirt, Esq. (Fla. Bar No.
109576)
WIRT & WIRT, P.A.
5 Calhoun Ave, Suite 306
Destin, FL 32541
Tel: 847-323-4082
Fax: 314-431-6920
jwirt@wirtlawfirm.com
Attorneys for the Plaintiff
5
CERTIFICATE REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH LOC. R. 7.1(B)
Sport & Wheat sought Synovus’s consent today. Synovus stated that it would
not agree to this motion.
/s/ William F. Cash III
CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT UNDER LOC. R. 7.1(F)
I certify that the core of this brief contains 784 words, including headers,
footnotes, and quotations.
/s/ William F. Cash III
6
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.flnd.190491.63.0.pdf
- Size
- 93,039 bytes
- SHA-256
- 697bb720369fddbf5547ad745bc71d61b2da60b137d254da8c075fa32e85b03e
- Original
- No public link identified.