Wyse v. Metropolitan Commercial Bank

Background

The parties jointly requested a confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The court had previously directed the parties to prepare an agreement consistent with confidentiality provisions in an order entered in a related Federal Trade Commission proceeding involving Voyager Digital, LLC. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order and entered the stipulated order.

What the Order Covers

The order permits a producing party to designate only portions of discovery materials that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain protected information. Covered categories include trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information, sensitive personal or financial information, personal or intimate information, and other categories the court later designates as confidential.

The order specifically defines “Confidential Customer Information” to include identifying, contact, Social Security, and account-access information concerning former Voyager customers, including customers who assigned legal claims to the plaintiff and whose claims are asserted in this action. Recipients generally may disclose confidential materials only to specified people who need the information for the prosecution, defense, or adjudication of the case. Those people include the parties, relevant counsel and support staff, outside service providers, certain witnesses and experts who sign nondisclosure agreements, mediators or arbitrators who sign such agreements, document recipients, deposition stenographers, and the court.

Limits on Use and Court Filings

Confidential discovery materials may be used only for this action and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.

The plaintiff may disclose confidential customer information only in response to a valid discovery request under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, subject to the order’s restrictions. That information may be used to investigate the claims against the defendant and to determine what further discovery is needed, including depositions and document requests involving the assignors. The defendant reserved the right to ask for permission to use assignors’ confidential customer information in other proceedings brought against the defendant by or on behalf of those assignors.

Parties filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party seeking to file under seal must also submit a motion or letter motion and supporting papers explaining, on a particularized basis, why continued sealing is justified. The court retained discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to material submitted in connection with motions or other proceedings and stated that it was unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial.

Challenges, Return, and Enforcement

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice stating the specific grounds. The parties must meet and confer in good faith, and unresolved disputes may be brought to the court. A party may likewise request additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, through the order’s dispute process.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential materials and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Specifically retained attorneys may keep archival copies of certain case-related materials, which remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions. Judge Paul A. Engelmayer signed the order on February 6, 2025.