CHIEF Judge Ramona V. Manglona of the District Court for the NMI has granted the request of Sardini Group Inc. and Imperial Pacific International LLC to issue a protective order to prevent confidential information disclosures in their civil litigation.
“The disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted,” the judge said in her 13-page order on Monday.
The judge added, “The parties acknowledge that this order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The parties further acknowledge that this stipulated protective order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal. Local Rule 79.2 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal.”
An engineering firm based in New York, Sardini Group sued IPI for breach of contract in the amount of $1.95 million last year.
IPI, through attorney Samuel Salyer, and Sardini Group, represented by attorney Joe W. McDoulett, filed the stipulated motion for a protective order.
Sardini Group, according to the lawsuit, agreed to provide structural engineering and design services, connection design services, site engineering support services, and additional services as required for the construction of IPI’s hotel-casino.
On July 11, 2016, Sardini Group provided IPI with a summary of all services it performed up to June 30, 2016, amounting to $1.22 million.
Sardini Group billed IPI on Oct. 26, 2016.
On Nov. 8, 2016, Sardini Group issued an invoice for $200,000 to IPI representing a partial invoice of the outstanding amounts owed.
On Nov. 23, 2016, IPI paid Sardini Group $100,000.
According to McDoulett, IPI assured Sardini Group that additional payments would be provided to encourage the engineering firm to continue providing additional services under the contract.
“Despite the failure to pay the amount owed, IPI continued to demand additional services from Sardini Group,” McDoulett said.
Sardini Group on Jan. 2, 2017 issued a second invoice in the amount of $400,000 and provided an updated summary of services rendered amounting to $1.78 million on Oct. 5, 2017.
Another request for payment for services rendered was made by Sardini Group on Jan. 19, 2018.
By March 5, 2018, the total calculated fee for services provided by Sardini Group to IPI was $2 million, the lawsuit stated.
It added that IPI has never paid Sardini Group after the first initial payment of $100,000.
The court scheduled a bench trial for March 14, 2022 at 9 a.m.
Ramona Manglona
