Pyatetsky v. Merit Capital Advisors, LLC
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-08154
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Pyatetsky v. Merit Capital Advisors, Judge Vargas issued a protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The parties, their lawyers and representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, third parties producing discovery, litigation-support providers, and other people who receive or have notice of confidential discovery material.
What happened
In Pyatetsky v. Merit Capital Advisors, LLC, the parties asked the Southern District of New York to protect confidential information exchanged during discovery. They agreed to the proposed terms through their lawyers.
The order limits disclosure of designated confidential material and allows its use only for this case and related appeals. It covers categories such as private financial information, business plans, client lists, personal information, and other information the court later designates. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling private information, responding to subpoenas, protecting accidentally disclosed privileged material, and returning or destroying confidential material after the case ends.
Judge Jeannette A. Vargas found good cause and issued the protective order. The order does not automatically permit documents to be filed under seal, decide whether evidence is admissible, or waive objections or privileges. Willful violations may result in contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Pyatetsky v. Merit Capital Advisors, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-08154
- Vargas
- Aug. 4, 2025
Background
The parties in this civil action—Shawn Pyatetsky, Merit Capital Advisors, LLC, and Edmund V. Ludwig, Jr., individually—requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented through counsel that discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose public disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The parties agreed to the order's terms.
Order's Protections
Judge Vargas found good cause to issue a tailored confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case. A person who receives discovery material designated "Confidential" generally may not disclose it except as the order permits. Designable material includes previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business plans, product-development information, presentations, client lists, and marketing plans; personal or intimate information; and other categories later given confidential status by the Court.
The order permits disclosure to specified people, including the parties, insurers, counsel and litigation-support personnel, mediators or arbitrators, certain document recipients, potential witnesses, experts and advisers, deposition stenographers, and the Court. Several categories of recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes.
The order establishes procedures for marking discovery and deposition material, correcting an initially missed confidentiality designation, objecting to a designation, and requesting additional restrictions such as attorneys'-eyes-only treatment. It also addresses discovery subject to a third party's confidentiality obligations, lawful subpoenas, personally identifying information, and data breaches.
Sealing and Privilege
The protective order states that it does not create an entitlement to file confidential material under seal. A party seeking to file under seal must submit a letter-motion explaining the basis, and a public redacted filing is generally required alongside the sealed unredacted version. The Court retains discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to material submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding and stated that it is unlikely to seal material introduced at trial.
If privileged or attorney-work-product material is inadvertently disclosed, the disclosure does not automatically waive the protection. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure and provide counsel's certification. The producing party must then provide a privilege log, while retaining the burden of establishing that the material is privileged or protected. The receiving party may ask the Court to compel production, and either party may request review of the material in private.
Disposition
The Court issued the protective order. It remains effective after the litigation ends, and confidential discovery material generally must be returned or destroyed within 30 days after final disposition, subject to the order's provisions allowing attorneys to retain certain archival case files. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions for willful violations. The order did not decide the admissibility of evidence, waive discovery objections or privileges, or determine that any material must be sealed.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.