Barbato v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

Background

The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose public disclosure could harm the person producing it or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or resolve any dispute about the parties’ legal rights.

Protective-order terms

The order covers discovery material—information produced or disclosed during discovery—that a producing person designates as confidential. A designation is limited to information whose disclosure is restricted by law or could harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information; trade secrets and other proprietary information; and previously undisclosed personal or intimate information. The court may also grant confidential status to other categories.

Covered recipients may disclose confidential discovery material only to specified people and entities, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation-support personnel, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and recipients, potential witnesses, experts, deposition transcription staff, and the court. Certain recipients must first read the order and sign a non-disclosure agreement. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes.

The order establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and requesting additional limits on disclosure. It also requires notice when a party receives a discovery request for information subject to a third party’s confidentiality obligation. Confidential material may be produced in response to a subpoena or other compulsory process, but the receiving person must notify the producing person before disclosure when required by the order.

The order does not automatically permit filing confidential material under seal. A party seeking to seal a filing must submit a letter-motion explaining the basis for sealing, and the court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential. The order states that the court is unlikely to seal material introduced into evidence at trial.

Inadvertent disclosure and enforcement

An inadvertent disclosure of material subject to attorney-client privilege or work-product protection does not itself waive that protection. After a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the receiving party generally must return or destroy the material within five business days and provide counsel’s certification. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production, while the disclosing party retains the burden of showing that the material is privileged or protected.

The order continues after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, confidential discovery material generally must be returned or destroyed and certified as returned or destroyed, although attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of specified case materials subject to the order. Willful violations may result in contempt of court, and the court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce the order or impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

The parties stipulated and agreed to the protective-order terms, and Judge Oetken ordered them on April 9, 2025. The ruling concerns discovery confidentiality and does not decide the merits of the underlying case.