Karsan v. Jain

Background

The parties jointly requested a 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 parties agreed to the order’s terms, and the court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order during the pretrial phase.

Terms of the Order

The order covers discovery material designated as “Confidential.” A producing party may make that designation only for material it reasonably and in good faith believes contains certain previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; or another category the court later gives confidential status.

Confidential material generally may be disclosed only to specified people, including the parties and their insurers, case counsel and support staff, outside litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription services, and the court. Potential witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement in substantially the required form.

The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material, designating deposition testimony, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, and objecting to a confidentiality designation. It also allows a party to request additional limits on disclosure, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only restriction, by written notice stating the grounds for the request.

Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for another purpose or litigation. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether any material will be admissible at trial. The court also stated that it had not itself found that any designated material was confidential and retained discretion over whether to give material confidential treatment.

When confidential material is filed with the court, the parties must publicly file a redacted copy and file the unredacted version under seal. A party seeking to keep material under seal must file a motion and supporting documents providing a particularized justification. The order warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed and emphasizes the presumption of public access to judicial documents.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep certain archival case files, but those materials remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

Judge Jennifer L. Rochon entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on October 30, 2025. The order binds the parties and other covered persons who have notice of it, and violations may be punished as contempt of court.