Bartlett v. J. Noah B.V.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-10345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
Bartlett v. J.NOAH B.V.: Judge Furman approved a discovery protective order governing confidential materials but did not decide whether particular documents deserved confidentiality.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, experts, consultants, vendors, witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and other people with actual or constructive notice of the protective order.
What happened
In Bartlett v. J.NOAH B.V. and Jozef Wanno, the parties asked the court to set rules for handling confidential information exchanged during discovery. They represented that the case would involve private business, financial, personal, and other sensitive information.
The order allows parties and others covered by it to label qualifying discovery materials confidential. It limits disclosure and use of those materials, requires additional agreements from some recipients, sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and addresses subpoenas, personal information, sealing, and the return or destruction of materials after the case ends.
Judge Jesse M. Furman so ordered the parties’ agreement on May 29, 2025. Judge Furman emphasized that the court had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential; any such decision would be made later, document by document, subject to public-access rules.
The detailed version
- Bartlett v. J. Noah B.V. · No. 1:23-cv-10345
- Jesse Furman
- May 29, 2025
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets limits on how information exchanged during discovery may be used and disclosed. The parties represented that discovery would include confidential documents or information whose disclosure could harm a producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The opinion identifies Stewart D. Aaron as the United States Magistrate Judge presenting the order, and Judge Jesse M. Furman signed the order as “so ordered.”
Confidentiality Rules
The order permits a producing person to designate material as “Confidential” only when public disclosure is restricted by law or would harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Examples include previously undisclosed financial information; ownership information about a nonpublic company; sensitive commercial information, including tax data, trade secrets, marketing plans, pricing information, and customer information; and personal or intimate information about an individual.
Recipients generally may not disclose designated material except to specified people, including the parties, counsel, litigation-support providers, certain mediators or arbitrators, authors or addressees of documents, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for business, commercial, or competitive purposes.
The order also establishes procedures for correcting an omitted confidentiality designation, objecting to a designation, requesting additional limits such as attorneys’ eyes-only treatment, and handling material subject to a third party’s confidentiality obligations. It addresses disclosures required by subpoenas or law, filings under seal, and personally identifying information. People with access must take precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and a recipient must promptly notify the producing person of a data breach involving personally identifying information.
The order remains effective after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, confidential discovery material must be returned or destroyed, unless the producing person permits otherwise. Willful violations may result in contempt sanctions, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order.
Ruling and Limitation
Judge Furman so ordered the parties’ stipulated protective order. He specifically stated that the court had not reviewed the documents covered by the stipulation and therefore made no finding that those documents were confidential. Any confidentiality determination would be made, if necessary, through document-by-document review under the court’s procedures and the presumption that judicial documents should generally be publicly accessible. The order also does not automatically authorize the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.