Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-09372
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Hildreth Real Estate Advisors v. Galvis, Judge Ho granted a protective-order motion and granted in part a request to extend discovery.
Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC, Felipe Galvis, and the parties’ discovery process were affected. The plaintiff received a protective order, and discovery was extended in part to September 30, 2024.
What happened
In Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis, the parties disagreed about a confidentiality and protective order for discovery. The plaintiff said the case involved alleged misuse of confidential business information, while the pro se defendant challenged what he viewed as broad confidentiality protection.
The plaintiff asked for a protective order and a 90-day discovery extension. The defendant objected to the plaintiff’s description of their discussions and argued that the plaintiff had not shown good cause for protecting each document and piece of information.
Judge Dale E. Ho granted the plaintiff’s protective-order motion and granted in part the request to extend discovery. The court extended the discovery deadline to September 30, 2024, rescheduled the case-management conference for October 15, 2024, and required additional filings and service of the order.
The detailed version
- Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis · No. 1:23-cv-09372
- Ho
- June 26, 2024
Background
The court held a conference on May 29, 2024, about the plaintiff’s proposed confidentiality stipulation and protective order. The parties initially agreed to consider the court’s model order, but the plaintiff later reported that they had reached an impasse. The plaintiff then filed a letter-motion seeking a protective order and a 90-day extension of discovery. The pro se defendant responded, disputing the plaintiff’s descriptions of their communications and objecting to broad confidentiality protection.
The complaint alleged that the defendant misappropriated the plaintiff’s confidential information and asserted claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act and for misappropriation, tortious interference with contractual relations, conversion, defamation, and breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiff said a protective order was needed because discovery would involve information about its investors and other confidential business and financial information.
Protective Order
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) allows a court, for good cause, to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense. It also allows protection for trade secrets and other confidential commercial information. The court explained that the party seeking protection must show good cause, ordinarily by identifying a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that disclosure would cause.
The court found that a protective order was appropriate because the case involved sensitive business and financial information and the plaintiff had shown identifiable harms. The court therefore granted the plaintiff’s letter-motion. The plaintiff was ordered to provide the court by June 28, 2024, with a clean version and a redline version of the model confidentiality stipulation showing the plaintiff’s proposed modifications.
Discovery Extension and Other Directions
The court granted in part the request for a 90-day discovery extension and set September 30, 2024, as the new discovery deadline. It rescheduled the case-management conference from July 30 to October 15, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time. The parties were ordered to submit a joint status letter by October 8 addressing any planned dispositive motions, their settlement efforts, and whether they wanted a referral for settlement discussions.
The court also referred the pro se defendant to its Discovery Guide for Pro Se Litigants. The plaintiff was ordered to serve the defendant with a copy of the order by overnight courier within two business days and file proof of service.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.