Sudakow v. Energy
Joanne Sudakow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-09685
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Judge Halpern approved a confidentiality and protective order governing discovery, with deviations and a clean-copy deadline.
The order binds the parties and their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns; their representatives, agents, experts, and consultants; third parties providing discovery; permitted recipients of confidential material; and other interested persons with actual or constructive notice. Violations may be enforced through contempt sanctions.
What happened
In Joanne Sudakow v. CleanChoice Energy, Inc., the parties asked the court to approve an agreement protecting sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The order concerns pretrial information and does not decide the underlying claims.
The court approved the proposed confidentiality agreement and protective order, with the deviations identified in the parties’ submission. The order limits disclosure of designated confidential information, permits certain people to receive it for this litigation, and sets procedures for sealed filings, challenges to confidentiality designations, accidentally disclosed privileged information, and returning or destroying protected material.
Judge Philip M. Halpern directed the parties to file a clean copy containing signatures from counsel for all parties by October 24, 2025, and entered the order. The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retains authority to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Sudakow v. Energy · No. 7:23-cv-09685
- Philip Halpern
- Oct. 20, 2025
Background
The parties jointly requested a confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The order is intended to protect sensitive information that may be exchanged during discovery in this action. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase.
Terms of the Order
The order allows a producing party to designate portions of discovery material as “Confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” when the party reasonably and in good faith believes the material contains specified sensitive information. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business plans and marketing information, and personal or intimate information. Attorneys’-eyes-only treatment is limited to information that could cause significant competitive or commercial disadvantage if disclosed to a competitor.
People subject to the order generally may not disclose designated material except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties and certain counsel, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and addressees, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Several categories of recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Protected material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
The order establishes procedures for marking protected information, filing redacted public versions and unredacted sealed versions of court submissions, and challenging confidentiality designations or requesting additional disclosure limits. A party seeking to file material under seal must also submit a letter brief and supporting declaration providing a particularized justification. The court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding and states that it is unlikely to seal material introduced into evidence at trial.
The order also addresses accidentally disclosed information protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. Such disclosure is not treated as a waiver. After receiving a claim of accidental disclosure, the receiving party generally must return or destroy the information within five business days, while the producing party must provide a privilege log. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production, and the producing party retains the burden of establishing the information’s privileged or protected status.
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they retained no copies or reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep certain archival litigation files, but those files remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction as necessary to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.
Ruling
Judge Philip M. Halpern granted the application and ordered the parties’ proposed stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order with the deviations identified in their submission. The parties were directed to file a clean copy containing signatures from counsel for all parties through the court’s electronic filing system by October 24, 2025.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.