CROSS FIRE & SECURITY CO. v. DOORLY
CROSS FIRE & SECURITY CO., INC. AND NORTH AMERICAN FIRE HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A ALTUS FIRE & LIFE SAFETY v. ALAN DOORLY; CHRIS NEIL; AND EMPIRE FIRE ALARM SPECIALIST CO INC.
- Katherine Failla
- 1:25-cv-04846
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Cross Fire v. Empire, Judge Failla issued a joint protective order governing confidential discovery and attorneys’-eyes-only material.
The parties, their counsel, representatives, agents, experts, consultants, service providers, witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and other people with actual or constructive notice of the protective order.
What happened
Cross Fire & Security Co., Inc. and North American Fire Holdings, LLC d/b/a Altus Fire & Life Safety sued Alan Doorly, Chris Neil, and Empire Fire Alarm Specialist Co Inc. The parties jointly asked for rules protecting confidential and trade-secret information exchanged during discovery.
The order limits disclosure of material labeled “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” to specified people, including counsel, experts, certain witnesses, service providers, and the court. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing redacted or sealed materials, protecting personal information, handling accidentally disclosed privileged material, and returning or destroying protected materials after the case ends.
The court found good cause and ordered the protective order. Judge Katherine Polk Failla stated that the order does not automatically permit court filings under seal and that willful violations could lead to contempt sanctions; the court retained limited authority to enforce the order during the litigation.
The detailed version
- CROSS FIRE & SECURITY CO. v. DOORLY · No. 1:25-cv-04846
- Katherine Failla
- Nov. 17, 2025
Nature of the Order
The parties, through counsel, stipulated to a joint protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve confidential and trade-secret documents or information whose public disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The court found good cause to enter a tailored confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case and ordered it.
Confidential Material
The order defines “Discovery Material” as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing person may designate material “Confidential” only when its public disclosure is restricted by law or would harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests, including previously undisclosed financial information, ownership information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, and personal or intimate information.
Recipients generally may not disclose Confidential Discovery Material except to specified categories, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation staff, approved service providers, mediators or arbitrators, certain witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Several recipients must first sign a non-disclosure agreement. The order also establishes a process for objecting to confidentiality designations and bringing unresolved disputes to the court.
Attorneys’ Eyes Only Material
A party may request an “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or AEO, designation for material it believes in good faith contains trade secrets or other confidential research, development, or commercial information. AEO material may be disclosed only to the narrower group listed in the order, including litigation counsel and staff, approved service providers, mediators or arbitrators, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Required non-disclosure agreements apply to certain recipients. AEO material may be used by permitted individuals unless outside counsel agrees to broader access or the court orders it.
Court Filings, Privacy, and Privilege
The order does not create an entitlement to file confidential information under seal. A party seeking to seal documents must comply with the court’s applicable rules and explain the particular reasons for sealing. The order emphasizes the presumption of public access and states that sealing should be narrowly tailored. The court retains discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to protected material submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding.
Personally identifying information exchanged in discovery must be kept secure and confidential, and a receiving person must promptly notify the producing person of a data breach. An inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privileged or attorney work-product material does not waive the protection. Upon a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the recipient generally must return or destroy the material within five business days, after which the producing person must provide a privilege log. The recipient may ask the court to compel production, and the producing person retains the burden of establishing privilege or protection.
Use and Enforcement
Protected material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, competitive, personal, or other litigation purposes. The order survives termination of the litigation. Within 30 days after final disposition, protected materials must be returned or destroyed, unless the producing person permits destruction, and the recipient must certify that it has not retained copies or summaries. Willful violations may subject a person to contempt sanctions. The court retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce obligations or impose contempt sanctions, while the order states that the confidentiality agreement does not bind the court or its personnel and that the court may modify the stipulation.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.