The Carnegie Hall Corp. v. Carnegie Hospitality LLC et al.

Nature of the filing

The provided text is a joint submission by the parties asking the court to resolve disagreements about a stipulated protective order for discovery. It does not contain a judicial ruling or an order disposing of the disputes.

Background

The filing states that, on September 25, 2025, the court directed the parties to follow The Carnegie Hall Corporation’s proposed discovery plan. The parties negotiated a protective order but could not agree on three issues involving documents designated “Highly Confidential — Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “AEO Documents.” The filing also describes the matter as being in a pre-motion-to-dismiss stage while the parties explored resolution.

The plaintiff’s position

The plaintiff asked the court to enter its proposed protective order. It sought permission for Vera Zlatarski, identified as Carnegie Hall’s general counsel, to review AEO Documents for litigation strategy. The plaintiff represented that Zlatarski was not involved in competitive decision-making.

The plaintiff also sought permission for retained experts and jury consultants to review AEO Documents before expert disclosures under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2). It argued that experts would need access before preparing the written reports accompanying their disclosures. Finally, the plaintiff opposed requiring counsel to record every instance in which an authorized person viewed AEO Documents. It proposed using signed acknowledgments instead.

The defendants’ position

The defendants argued that the plaintiff described itself as a direct competitor that intended to expand into the same business and market, making stricter limits on competitively sensitive information necessary. They opposed access by the plaintiff’s in-house counsel, undisclosed experts, and professional jury or trial consultants.

The defendants argued that access by in-house counsel requires an individualized review of the lawyer’s duties and involvement in competitive decision-making, and that the plaintiff had not provided enough information about Zlatarski’s current and reasonably foreseeable responsibilities. They also argued that experts should be disclosed before receiving AEO Documents and that jury and trial consultants should be subject to safeguards such as confidentiality undertakings, advance disclosures, an opportunity to object, and possible motion practice.

The defendants further requested a disclosure log recording who received AEO Documents, what was disclosed, when it was disclosed, and whether the recipient signed an acknowledgment.

Disposition

The parties asked the court either to enter one of their proposed protective orders or to provide instructions on the disputed terms. The provided text does not state whether Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald granted, denied, or otherwise resolved any request. Accordingly, no judicial disposition can be identified from this text.