McDermott v. This Dog's Life Corp
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:23-cv-05869
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In McDermott v. This Dog’s Life Corp., Judge Lehrburger entered a protective order governing confidential discovery and sealed filings.
Matthew McDermott, This Dog’s Life Corp., their counsel and representatives, experts and consultants, specified third parties, and anyone else subject to the protective order who receives or provides confidential discovery material.
What happened
McDermott v. This Dog’s Life Corp. is a case in which the parties asked the court to protect confidential information they expected to exchange during discovery. They said public disclosure could harm the party or person entitled to confidentiality.
The order allows parties to label certain sensitive information confidential, limits who may receive it, and restricts its use to this case. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality labels, filing confidential material under seal, returning or destroying the material after the case ends, and enforcing the order.
Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger found good cause and ordered the agreed protective order on August 26, 2024. The order does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- McDermott v. This Dog's Life Corp · No. 1:23-cv-05869
- Paul Engelmayer
- Aug. 26, 2024
Background
Matthew McDermott and This Dog’s Life Corp. jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They anticipated exchanging nonpublic and confidential documents, electronically stored information, and other materials during discovery. The parties represented that disclosure could harm the producing party or another person who owed or was owed a duty of confidentiality. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order.
Main Terms
A party may designate material as “Confidential” when counsel determines in good faith that protection is needed for proprietary information, trade secrets, sensitive nonpublic information, or information whose disclosure could harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Examples include previously undisclosed financial information, business plans, product-development or marketing information, and personal or intimate information. Designations must be limited to portions that clearly contain confidential information.
The order generally prohibits recipients from disclosing designated material. It permits disclosure to specified people, including the parties, their counsel and litigation-support personnel, the court, certain persons identified in documents, and experts and consultants. Experts, consultants, and other agreed recipients must receive the order, sign an agreement to follow it, and in some circumstances be identified to the opposing party before disclosure. The opposing party may object, and unresolved objections may be presented to the court.
The order provides procedures for challenging a confidentiality designation and for handling material subject to a third party’s confidentiality obligation. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action. Within 30 days after final disposition, recipients must return or destroy the material and confirm its destruction. The order also requires redacted public filings and sealed filings when confidential discovery material is included, while preserving the court’s procedures for deciding whether sealing is justified.
Ruling and Effect
The court ordered the stipulated protective order. The order remains effective after the action ends, and willful violations may lead to contempt punishment. The court retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the order or impose penalties or sanctions for violations. The opinion is a discovery-related order and does not resolve the merits of McDermott’s claims or This Dog’s Life Corp.’s defenses.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.