Palacin v. Experian Information Solutions

Background

Oscar Enrique Medina Palacin and Defendants Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and Trans Union LLC jointly moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) for entry of an agreed protective order. The motion stated that discovery was likely to involve information about a defendant’s processes for receiving, maintaining, and reporting confidential credit information. The parties sought an umbrella protective order allowing them to designate qualifying information as confidential without requiring document-by-document disputes before production.

The motion described the governing standard as “good cause.” It also stated that the court must balance the applicant’s interest in confidentiality against potential prejudice to the opposing party and the public’s common-law interest in access to court proceedings.

Protective Order

The order creates two main confidentiality levels: “Confidential” and “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Producing parties and non-parties may designate documents, portions of documents, and deposition testimony when they reasonably contend that the materials contain confidential or proprietary information. The order requires a good-faith basis for confidentiality designations and provides procedures for designating deposition testimony after the deposition.

Confidential materials may be used only to prepare for and try this action. They may be disclosed to specified recipients, including the court and its staff, attorneys and their staff, experts, certain witnesses, court reporters, jurors, and litigation-support personnel, subject to the order’s requirements. Attorneys’-eyes-only materials are subject to more limited disclosure, principally to outside counsel, qualified experts, the court, certain vendors, the original source, and agreed mediation personnel.

The order establishes procedures for correcting an erroneous designation and challenging a designation. The parties must first meet and confer; if they cannot resolve the dispute, the objecting party may seek relief from the court. A challenged designation remains in effect while the dispute is pending. The order also addresses inadvertent disclosure of documents claimed to be privileged or protected, security precautions, data breaches, return or destruction of confidential materials after termination of the action, and survival of the confidentiality obligations.

The order states that it does not itself authorize filing any document under seal. Materials subject to the order may be filed under seal only in compliance with the court’s applicable rules for sealed filings.

Ruling and Effect

The court found good cause and granted the joint motion. The court modified the proposed protective order to require the parties to comply with the court’s Individual Rules governing filings under seal. The court also directed the Clerk of Court to close Docket Number 50. Judge John P. Cronan’s order concerned discovery confidentiality and did not decide the merits of the underlying dispute.