Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 12, 2024

Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis

Judge
Ho
Docket
1:23-cv-09372
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Hildreth Real Estate Advisors v. Galvis, Judge Ho allowed Galvis to respond to Hildreth’s protective-order request; the excerpt does not show a final ruling.

Who this affects

Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC and Felipe Galvis, particularly their discovery obligations and Hildreth’s requests for confidentiality protection and more time for discovery.

What happened

Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC asked for protection during discovery in its case against Felipe Galvis. Hildreth’s complaint alleges that defendants misappropriated confidential business information and asserts several claims, including under the Defend Trade Secrets Act.

Hildreth requested a protective order covering discovery about its confidential information and trade secrets. It also requested a 90-day extension of the discovery deadline, attributing delays to Galvis’s alleged refusal to agree to a confidentiality agreement.

Judge Dale E. Ho’s order allowed Galvis to file a response by June 27, 2024, required Hildreth to serve him with the order, and directed the clerk to close the referenced docket entry. The excerpt does not state that the court granted or denied the protective-order or discovery-extension requests.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis · No. 1:23-cv-09372
Judge
Ho
Date
June 12, 2024

Background

Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC sued Felipe Galvis and other defendants. According to the complaint as described in Hildreth’s letter, the dispute concerns alleged misappropriation of Hildreth’s confidential information and trade secrets. The complaint asserts claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 and for misappropriation, tortious interference with contractual relations, conversion, defamation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

The complaint alleges that Hildreth’s investor information and other business and financial information qualify as trade secrets. It further alleges that the information has economic value because it is not generally known, that Hildreth took reasonable steps to keep it secret, and that defendants misappropriated, used, or disclosed it. Galvis served discovery demands concerning those allegations.

Requests

Hildreth asked the court to enter a protective order for discovery involving its confidential information and trade secrets. A protective order can limit how discovery material is disclosed or used when there is good cause, including to protect confidential business information. Hildreth also requested a 90-day extension of the discovery deadline, which was then set for July 10, 2024. Hildreth attributed discovery delays to Galvis’s alleged refusal to agree to a confidentiality arrangement.

Order

The excerpt shows that the court permitted Galvis to file a response, if any, by June 27, 2024. It required Hildreth to serve Galvis with the order by overnight courier within two business days and to file proof of service. Judge Dale E. Ho also directed the clerk to close ECF No. 44. The excerpt does not state that the court granted or denied Hildreth’s requested protective order or discovery extension, so no final disposition of those requests can be identified from the provided text.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.