Coaction.com, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.

Nature of the Order

The court issued a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties, through their lawyers, requested protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order covering the pretrial phase of the case.

Protected Information and Disclosure Limits

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

People subject to the order generally may disclose confidential discovery material only to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, litigation counsel and their support staff, outside vendors working on the case, certain mediators or arbitrators, people identified in a document, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription staff, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement acknowledging the order and agreeing to be bound by it.

Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals. People with access must take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. The order also permits disclosure in response to a lawful subpoena or other legal requirement, subject to notice requirements and the producing party’s opportunity to oppose the disclosure.

Challenges, Court Filings, and End of the Case

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice explaining the grounds. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they must bring it to the court under the court’s individual practices. A party seeking additional limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, must follow a similar process.

When confidential material is filed with the court, the parties must publicly file a redacted version and separately seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal. The order emphasizes that the court has not decided whether any material is confidential and may later refuse confidential treatment. It also warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed without the required findings.

Within 60 days after the final resolution of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have not kept copies or other reproductions. Litigation counsel may retain certain archival case files, but those materials remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the parties and other persons subject to the order to comply with these confidentiality and handling requirements. This ruling concerns discovery management and confidentiality only; the opinion does not resolve the merits of Coaction.com, LLC’s claims or Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.’s defenses.