The Bank of New York Mellon v. Azteca
The Bank of New York Mellon, Solely in Its Capacity as Trustee for the TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V. 8.25% Senior Notes Due 2024 v. TV Azteca, S.A.B. de C.V.; Alta Empresa, S.A. de C.V.; Asesoría Especializada en Aviación, S.A. de C.V.; Azteca Records, S.A. de C.V.; Azteca Sports Rights LLC; Equipo de Futbol Mazatlan, S.A. de C.V.; Ganador Azteca, S.A.P.I. de C.V.; Mazatlan Promotora de Futbol, S.A. de C.V.; Operadora Mexicana de Televisión, S.A. de C.V.; Producciones Azteca Digital, S.A. de C.V.; Producciones Dopamina, S.A. de C.V.; Producciones Especializadas, S.A. de C.V.; Productora de Televisión Regional de TV Azteca, S.A. de C.V.; Promotora de Futbol Rojinegros, S.A. de C.V.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-08164
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
Bank of New York Mellon v. TV Azteca: Judge Gardephe entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and related court filings.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, discovery providers, experts, witnesses, noteholders covered by the order, third parties producing discovery, and anyone else with actual or constructive notice of the order.
What happened
In Bank of New York Mellon v. TV Azteca, the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information they may exchange during discovery. They agreed to the proposed terms.
The order limits disclosure of material marked confidential, permits disclosure to specified people such as counsel, experts, witnesses, and the court, and requires additional safeguards for some recipients. It also addresses challenges to confidentiality designations, accidentally produced privileged material, sealed filings, subpoenas, permitted uses, and the return or destruction of protected material after the case ends.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe found good cause and entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and address contempt.
The detailed version
- The Bank of New York Mellon v. Azteca · No. 1:22-cv-08164
- Paul Gardephe
- Nov. 3, 2025
Background
The parties, through counsel, 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 court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Confidentiality designations and disclosure
A producing party may designate only material it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category the court later protects. The order permits designations by marking protected portions and producing a redacted copy for future public use. Deposition testimony and exhibits may be designated during the deposition or within 30 days afterward; during that period, the entire transcript is treated as confidential.
A failure to designate material initially does not waive the right to designate it later before trial. Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties, certain noteholders, counsel and their staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and recipients, likely witnesses, experts and other specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement, which counsel must retain.
Court filings, privilege, and use restrictions
A party filing confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal, along with the required supporting materials. The court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding, and the order warns that trial evidence is unlikely to remain sealed absent the required findings.
The order preserves objections to discovery, privileges, and evidentiary objections. Under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), an inadvertent production of privileged or protected material does not waive the applicable protection. After notice, receiving parties generally must return or destroy the material within five business days and may not use it. The order also provides procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and seeking stricter limits on disclosure.
Confidential discovery may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for business, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order allows production in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process if the producing party receives notice when reasonably possible. Recipients must take reasonable precautions against unauthorized disclosure.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they kept no copies, subject to limited archival copies that litigation counsel may retain. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose sanctions for contempt.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.