Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 16, 2025

Lawal v. David Yurman Enterprises LLC

Judge
Gregory Woods
Docket
1:25-cv-04857
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
9
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Lawal v. David Yurman Enterprises, Judge Woods approved a protective order governing confidential discovery information.

Who this affects

Olasunbo Lawal, David Yurman Enterprises LLC, their counsel, and other people who receive or have actual notice of confidential discovery material are bound by the order's requirements.

What happened

Olasunbo Lawal v. David Yurman Enterprises LLC is a case in which the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.

The court ordered that properly designated confidential material could be shared only with specified people, including the parties, lawyers, certain vendors, witnesses, experts, and the court. The order also established procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential material, responding to subpoenas, and returning or destroying the material after the case ends.

Judge Gregory H. Woods found good cause for the order and entered it on October 16, 2025. The opinion addresses discovery confidentiality and does not decide the underlying dispute.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Lawal v. David Yurman Enterprises LLC · No. 1:25-cv-04857
Judge
Gregory Woods
Date
Oct. 16, 2025

Background

The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for issuing a suitably limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

What the Order Requires

The order permits a producing party to designate as confidential only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a private company, business plans, product-development or marketing information, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.

People covered by the order generally may not disclose designated confidential discovery material except as the order allows. Permitted recipients include the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation support personnel, outside vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts and other specialized advisers, deposition transcription staff, and the court. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first sign the required nondisclosure agreement.

The order allows parties to object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits. If the parties cannot resolve those disputes promptly, they must bring them to the court under its individual practices. Confidential material filed with the court generally requires a public redacted filing, an unredacted filing under seal, and a particularized application supporting secrecy. The order states that the court has not made a final finding that any designated material is confidential and may decline to seal material introduced at trial.

Confidential discovery material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoenas or law, precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and the return or destruction of confidential material within 60 days after final resolution of the action, including appeals, subject to limited archival retention by counsel. The obligations continue after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce them and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the parties' stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order was entered on October 16, 2025. It does not resolve the merits of Olasunbo Lawal's claims or David Yurman Enterprises LLC's defenses.

The authoritative version

Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.