Cross Fire & Security Co., Inc. et ano v. Alan Doorly et seq.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-04846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cross Fire & Security v. Alan Doorly, Judge Failla set AEO rules, limited use, and required return or destruction after the case.
Cross Fire & Security Co., Inc. and the other plaintiffs, Alan Doorly, Chris Neil, Empire Fire Alarm Specialist Co., Inc., and the parties’ counsel and discovery materials.
What happened
Cross Fire & Security Co., Inc. v. Alan Doorly involves a disagreement over a proposed protective order for discovery materials. The parties disputed whether documents could receive special “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” protection, how that protection would be assigned, and how protected materials could be used or handled after the case.
The court agreed with the plaintiffs that some materials could receive AEO protection and that confidential and AEO materials could be used only to prosecute or defend this case. It agreed with the defendants that most documents would not require confidential or AEO treatment and adopted a more limited procedure for assigning AEO status. Protected materials must be returned or destroyed within 30 days after the case’s final resolution.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla directed the parties to refile a protective order consistent with the ruling by November 13, 2025. She said the court would enter the parties’ electronically stored information protocol separately and directed the Clerk to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 40 and 41.
The detailed version
- Cross Fire & Security Co., Inc. et ano v. Alan Doorly et seq. · No. 1:25-cv-04846
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 6, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a proposed protocol governing documents and electronically stored information. They did not agree on a proposed protective order, so the defendants submitted a letter explaining the disagreement along with their proposed order and a comparison showing the differences between the parties’ proposals.
The dispute concerned three issues: (1) whether any material could be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or AEO; (2) the procedure for making AEO designations; and (3) how AEO and confidential materials could be used and whether they had to be destroyed after the litigation. The defendants argued that most documents would not need confidential treatment and that AEO treatment should be used only in limited circumstances. The plaintiffs sought broader procedures for designating documents as confidential and AEO.
Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The court agreed with the plaintiffs on the first and third issues and with the defendants on the second issue.
On the first issue, the court held that some documents in the case could qualify as trade secrets or confidential research, development, or commercial information. The plaintiffs were therefore justified in seeking AEO designations for those documents. At the same time, the court agreed with the defendants that most produced documents would not require confidential or AEO treatment because this was not a traditional trade-secrets case.
On the second issue, the court adopted the procedure used by other judges in the Southern District of New York, finding it preferable to the broader procedure proposed by the plaintiffs.
On the third issue, the court ruled that confidential and AEO discovery materials could be used only to prosecute or defend this action. The materials must be returned or destroyed within 30 days after the final disposition of the action.
Further Directions and Disposition
The court stated that it would enter the parties’ electronically stored information protocol separately. It directed the parties to refile a proposed protective order consistent with the endorsement by November 13, 2025. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the pending motions at docket entries 40 and 41.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.