Interparfums Luxury Brands, Inc. v. Gabet
- P. Castel
- 1:23-cv-06269
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Interparfums Luxury Brands v. Gabet, Judge Castel entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery in the case.
The parties—Interparfums Luxury Brands, Inc., Renee Gabet, and Annie Oakley Enterprises, Inc.—and other persons covered by the order, including counsel, representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and court personnel.
What happened
Interparfums Luxury Brands, Inc. v. Gabet is a case in which the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The order limits who may receive information labeled “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential—For Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and restricts its use to this case and related appeals. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing protected information under seal, handling accidental disclosures, responding to subpoenas, and returning or destroying protected material after the case ends.
Judge P. Kevin Castel entered the stipulated protective order on September 4, 2024. The order remains effective after the litigation ends, and the court retains authority to enforce it.
The detailed version
- Interparfums Luxury Brands, Inc. v. Gabet · No. 1:23-cv-06269
- P. Castel
- Sept. 4, 2024
Nature of the Order
The parties, through counsel, agreed to a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court found good cause to enter a tailored order governing confidentiality during the pretrial phase of the case. The order applies to the parties, their parents, successors, assigns, representatives, agents, experts, consultants, third parties providing discovery, and other persons with actual or constructive notice of the order.
Confidential Information
A producing party may designate material as “Confidential” if it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes categories such as previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information concerning a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, trade secrets, proprietary or competitively sensitive information, or personal or intimate information. The order also permits the court to give confidential status to other categories of information.
People subject to the order may disclose confidential material only to specified recipients, including certain party representatives and employees, counsel and their staff, outside vendors, insurers and their counsel, mediators or arbitrators, authors or addressees of documents, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Certain recipients must first sign a required nondisclosure agreement.
Attorneys’ Eyes Only Material
A producing party may designate material as “Highly Confidential—For Attorneys’ Eyes Only” when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material contains extremely sensitive, nonpublic trade secrets or proprietary, business, financial, regulatory, or strategic information whose disclosure could create a substantial risk of competitive or business injury. Access is limited primarily to litigation counsel, certain service providers, document authors or recipients, stenographers, the court, specified non-business-decision-making in-house counsel, and approved mediators, arbitrators, experts, or advisers.
Use and Filing Restrictions
Protected discovery may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.
Confidential discovery cannot be filed under seal based solely on the protective order. A separate court order is required, and a sealing application must address the applicable standards and controlling authority. The order also establishes notice periods for a party seeking to use another party’s confidential information and preserves the application of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 concerning specified personal information.
Challenges, Accidental Disclosure, and Subpoenas
A party challenging a confidentiality designation must give written notice and make a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute with opposing counsel. If the dispute remains unresolved, the challenging party may apply to or move the court to remove the designation. The designating party bears the burden of proving confidentiality, and the material remains protected while the dispute is pending.
The order permits nonparties to designate their discovery as protected and gives parties limited periods to designate nonparty materials. If privileged or otherwise protected documents are inadvertently disclosed, the producing party may request their return, and the receiving party may not use or rely on the disclosed information. Confidential material may also be produced in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process, subject to notice to the producing party when permitted.
Duration and Disposition
Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential discovery and copies. Counsel specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
Judge P. Kevin Castel entered the stipulated protective order on September 4, 2024. The opinion is a discovery-related procedural order and does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.