On Friday, visiting senior Judge WM. Fremming Nielsen heard the oral arguments of attorney Matthew Smith, who is representing Hiroyuki Saito, a former UMDA executive officer, and UMDA lawyers Robert Torres and Joseph Horrey.
On Nov. 17, 2010, Saito named UMDA and four John Does in his complaint filed in federal court.
Saito is asking for injunctive relief ordering UMDA to arbitrate this dispute in accordance with the terms of their contract, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, damages and other relief.
Mark A. Scoggins, who filed the complaint on Saito’s behalf, earlier asked the federal court to seal the complaint due to a “confidentiality requirement.”
On Nov. 18, 2010, Judge Mark W. Bennett granted the motion to seal the complaint “with significant reluctance.”
“The file in this case shall remain under seal until such time as the dispute between [Saito] and defendant [UMDA], exclusive of the dispute involving the John Doe defendants, is resolved, or until further order of the court directing otherwise,” Bennett said in his order.
Torres and Horey filed a motion to unseal the complaint and case file on Dec. 3, 2010.
They said Saito’s fear of litigation is not a compelling reason to seal the case.
The fact that Saito seeks arbitration is also not a compelling reason to seal the case, the UMDA lawyers said.
Likewise, Saito’s fear of defamation is not a compelling reason to seal the case, they added.
“If ever UMDA actually ‘defames’ Saito, he can bring a claim for libel or slander…. His present speculative fears, however, do not justify a sealing order either as a matter of fact, law, or common sense. And they surely cannot justify the sealing of Saito’s own complaint, unless we are to believe that Saito defamed himself therein,” the UMDA lawyers told the court.
In his opposition to the motion to unseal complaint on Dec. 15, 2010, Saito said his complaint against UMDA “should be resolved very simply.”
Scoggins said UMDA breach its employment contact with Saito, and is obligated to arbitrate this dispute.
When the dispute is arbitrated, UMDA will likely be found liable to Saito in the amount of at least one million dollars, Scoggins said.
UMDA has no real defense to Saito’s claims, Scoggins added.
Its only avenue will be to file baseless counter claims against Saito, “impugning his reputation and attempting to blame [the plaintiff] for several years of very poor management at UMDA,” Scoggins said.
UMDA is a Saipan-based firm that “invests in, owns and manages a portfolio of companies operating in the tourism, telecommunications, and airline industries.” It is the owner of Palms Resort Saipan which ceased operations last October so it can undergo “renovations.”
