Graham v. UMG Recordings, Inc.

What the order concerns

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The order governs confidential information exchanged during discovery, the evidence-gathering phase of the case. The parties agreed through counsel to its terms.

The court found good cause to issue a tailored confidentiality order because discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose public disclosure could harm the person or entity producing it, or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The order does not provide blanket protection for all discovery and does not automatically authorize filing protected information under seal.

Confidential information and permitted disclosures

A producing person may designate only information whose disclosure is restricted by law or would harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Covered categories include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; and other categories later given confidential status by the court.

Recipients generally may not disclose designated material except to specified people, including the parties and their counsel, insurers and their counsel, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain witnesses, experts and consultants, deposition stenographers, and the court. Several categories of recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only for prosecuting or defending this action and any appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes.

The order also allows certain especially sensitive contracts and business information to be designated “attorneys’ eyes only.” Material with that designation may be shown only to specified counsel, vendors, mediators or arbitrators, authors or recipients identified on a document, experts, stenographers, and the court. The order provides separate provisions for the defendant’s confidential information about relationships with other recording artists or nonparties and the plaintiff’s confidential information about business relationships with nonparties.

Challenges, court filings, and mistaken disclosures

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they must bring it to the court under the applicable individual rules. The order also provides a procedure for requesting additional limits on disclosure.

Confidential discovery filed with the court must generally be accompanied by a publicly filed redacted version and an unredacted version filed under seal with proposed redactions identified. The court retains discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to material submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding and warns that trial evidence is unlikely to remain sealed. A confidentiality designation alone does not guarantee sealing.

If privileged or attorney-work-product material is inadvertently disclosed, the disclosure does not by itself waive the protection. After a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days and provide a certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, while the receiving party may ask the court to order production. The party asserting privilege or protection retains the burden of establishing it.

Disposition and continuing effect

The court issued the stipulated protective order. It remains binding after termination of the litigation. Within 30 days after final disposition, recipients must return or, with the producing person’s permission, destroy confidential discovery and certify that they retained no copies or reproductions, subject to a limited archival-copy provision for attorneys specifically retained in the action. The court retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the order or impose contempt sanctions for willful violations. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas signed the order on May 12, 2025.