Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:24-cv-01260
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Brous v. Eligo, Judge Ramos denied Defendants’ protective-order motion without prejudice because counsel’s assurances were sufficient absent allegations of wrongdoing.
The plaintiffs and defendants in Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC, and current or former Eligo customers whose personal identifying information could be exchanged in discovery, including possible members of the proposed class.
What happened
In Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC, Defendants asked the court to formally record an agreement limiting how Plaintiffs could use personal identifying information obtained in discovery. The agreement concerned contact with Eligo’s current and former customers, some of whom might be members of the proposed class.
The motion stated that Defendants would not redact irrelevant material from otherwise discoverable documents if Plaintiffs agreed not to use exchanged personal information to contact those customers. Defendants said Plaintiffs’ counsel had represented that no such information had been used to contact customers and argued that a formal protective order was needed.
Judge Ramos denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice. He ruled that, because there were no allegations of wrongdoing, counsel’s representations that Plaintiffs had not used and would not use the information to contact absent class members were sufficient for the time being.
The detailed version
- Brous v. Eligo Energy, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-01260
- Edgardo Ramos
- Mar. 18, 2025
Background
Defendants filed a letter motion asking the court to enter a protective order memorializing what they described as the parties’ agreement concerning personally identifiable information (PII) exchanged during discovery. Defendants said they agreed not to redact irrelevant material from otherwise discoverable documents in exchange for Plaintiffs’ agreement not to use discovery-produced PII to contact Eligo’s current or former customers, who could include members of the proposed class.
According to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiffs had represented that they had not used discovery-produced PII to contact Eligo customers. Defendants said Plaintiffs would not join a stipulation, jointly modify the existing protective order, or otherwise formally record the no-contact agreement. Defendants requested a protective order or, alternatively, a modification of the existing protective order.
Court’s Analysis
The court did not identify allegations that Plaintiffs had misused the information. Instead, it found that counsel’s representations that Plaintiffs had not used, and would not use, discovery-produced PII to contact absent class members were sufficient to satisfy the court that counsel would act accordingly.
Disposition
Judge Ramos denied Defendants’ motion without prejudice to refiling if circumstances warranted. The opinion does not state that the court entered or modified a protective order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.