Kookmin Bank Co., Ltd v. Ashkenazy
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-05802
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Kookmin Bank v. Ashkenazy, Judge Woods approved a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials in the case.
The parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting in concert with them, and all other people with actual notice of the protective order. It also governs permitted recipients of designated confidential discovery material, including certain witnesses, experts, advisers, vendors, mediators, arbitrators, and court personnel.
What happened
In Kookmin Bank Co., Ltd. v. Ashkenazy, the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information they might disclose during discovery. The parties agreed to the proposed terms, and the court found good cause for a tailored order.
The order permits parties to designate certain discovery materials as confidential, including previously undisclosed financial information, private-company ownership information, business plans, marketing plans, and personal or intimate information. It limits disclosure to specified people, requires nondisclosure agreements for some recipients, restricts use to this case and related appeals, and sets procedures for court filings, objections, subpoenas, and returning or destroying materials.
The court issued the protective order and made it binding on the parties and other covered people, with violations potentially punishable as contempt. Judge Gregory H. Woods also retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose sanctions for contempt.
The detailed version
- Kookmin Bank Co., Ltd v. Ashkenazy · No. 1:22-cv-05802
- Gregory Woods
- June 19, 2024
Background
Kookmin Bank Co., Ltd., acting as trustee of KTB CRE DEBT FUND NO. 8 through the agents identified in the caption, and Ben Ashkenazy are the parties in this action. Through counsel, all parties requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The parties stipulated to the order's terms, and the court found good cause for issuing a tailored confidentiality order for the pretrial phase.
Protective-order terms
The order covers discovery material—information produced or disclosed during discovery—that a producing party designates as confidential. A producing party may make that designation for previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business plans, product-development or marketing information, personal or intimate information, and other categories the court later gives confidential status.
The order generally prohibits covered people from disclosing designated material except to specified recipients. Those recipients include the parties and certain insurers and counsel, counsel and their support staff, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and addressees, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription providers, and the court and related personnel. Mediators, arbitrators, witnesses, experts, and specialized advisers must first receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement. The order also requires reasonable precautions against unauthorized disclosure.
The parties may designate deposition testimony and exhibits during a deposition or within 30 days afterward. A producing party may correct an earlier failure to designate material by providing written notice and replacement versions. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or evidentiary objections, and it does not itself determine that designated material is confidential. The court stated that it retains discretion over confidential treatment and indicated that it is unlikely to seal material introduced at trial solely because it was previously designated confidential.
The order requires public filing of redacted versions when confidential discovery material is filed with the court, while an unredacted version must be filed under seal in accordance with the court's rules. A party seeking sealing must submit an application and supporting declaration with a particularized justification. Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits, including attorneys'-eyes-only treatment in extraordinary circumstances; unresolved disputes are to be presented to the court under its individual practices.
Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for another purpose or litigation. The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoenas or other compulsory process, including notice to the producing party. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients must return or destroy the material and certify that they retained no copies or other reproductions, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for attorneys specifically retained for the action. The order survives termination of the litigation.
Ruling
The court ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to follow its terms, on pain of contempt. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on June 19, 2024, and retained jurisdiction over persons subject to it as necessary to enforce the obligations or impose contempt sanctions.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.