S.E. Satisfy v. BlueStar Alliance, LLC
- Colleen McMahon
- 1:25-cv-04845
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In S.E. Satisfy v. Bluestar Alliance, Judge McMahon so ordered a protective agreement governing confidential discovery without deciding the parties’ claims.
S.E. Satisfy, Bluestar Alliance LLC, Justice Brand Holdings LLC, their counsel and specified litigation participants, and nonparties that produce information in the case.
What happened
S.E. Satisfy v. Bluestar Alliance involves S.E. Satisfy, société par actions simplifiée, Bluestar Alliance LLC, and Justice Brand Holdings LLC. The parties agreed that discovery could include confidential business and financial information and asked the court to approve rules limiting its use and disclosure.
The order creates two categories of protected information: “Confidential Information” and more sensitive “Attorneys-Eyes-Only Information.” It limits access and use, establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality labels, protects certain inadvertently produced privileged material, and sets rules for filing protected material and returning or destroying it after the case ends.
Judge Colleen McMahon so ordered the parties’ stipulation. The order does not decide the underlying claims or determine that the parties’ confidentiality designations are valid; it also states that court records are presumed public and that any requested redactions will be reviewed by the court.
The detailed version
- S.E. Satisfy v. BlueStar Alliance, LLC · No. 1:25-cv-04845
- Colleen McMahon
- July 11, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a stipulation and confidentiality order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They anticipated exchanging documents and other discovery materials that could contain confidential business or financial information. The stipulation also applies to information produced by nonparties voluntarily, under subpoena, or under a court order.
Terms of the Order
The court-approved order creates two levels of protected discovery material:
- Confidential Information: Material that the producing party reasonably believes contains nonpublic, confidential, or proprietary information and designates as confidential. - Attorneys-Eyes-Only Information: Previously designated confidential material containing highly sensitive information, including certain commercially sensitive information, agreements, settlement communications, marketing or financial data, research and development information, technical information, future-product information, or strategic plans.
Confidential material may be shared only with listed qualified recipients, including counsel, certain party representatives, experts and consultants who agree in writing to follow the order, the court, mutually agreed mediators or settlement officers, and certain support personnel. Attorneys-Eyes-Only material generally cannot be shared with the parties, their officers, directors, employees, or consultants under the provision that permits access to ordinary confidential information.
Protected information may be used only for this litigation and may not be used for business purposes or another legal proceeding. Covered court filings must be submitted under seal under the court’s filing procedures. The order also establishes procedures for challenging a confidentiality designation. Until the court resolves a challenge, the material remains protected, and the designating party bears the burden of showing that it is confidential.
The order addresses deposition transcripts, nonparty discovery, inadvertent production of privileged material, unauthorized disclosures, subpoenas, and the return or destruction of protected information after a final non-appealable judgment, order, or complete settlement. It preserves the ability to seek additional protection or to ask the court to relax or rescind restrictions.
Court’s Addendum and Ruling
The addendum states that the court’s approval does not make the court a party to the stipulation or establish that material labeled confidential is actually confidential. It emphasizes the presumption that the court’s entire record should be publicly available. If a future decision refers to confidential material, the parties will have ten days to identify proposed redactions and explain why the material deserves confidential treatment; the court will make the final determination.
Judge Colleen McMahon signed the stipulation and marked it “SO ORDERED.” The order governs discovery confidentiality and related enforcement issues; it does not resolve the merits of S.E. Satisfy’s claims or the defendants’ counterclaim.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.