Suarez v. Brasserie Felix, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs are Miguel Angel Suarez, Miguel Cielo Ramos, Gerardo Ixehuatl Hernandez, Gustavo Jacobo Peralta, Juan Manuel Cuervo Reyes, Carlos Rangel Camacho, Marcelino Barrales Ramos, Nestor Hernandez Sanchez, Leo Dan Andrade Huerta, Jose Gaguancela Aucacama, Fidencio Juarez Tecuapacho, and Efren Romero, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated. The defendants are Brasserie Felix, Inc., doing business as Restaurant Felix, and Alexandre Catteau and Alain Denneulin, individually. The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for a tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase.

Protective-order requirements

The order allows a producing party to mark as confidential only material it reasonably and in good faith believes contains specified categories of information, including previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category later approved by the court. The order provides procedures for marking documents and deposition testimony, including a 30-day period during which an entire deposition transcript must be treated as confidential.

Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to listed recipients, such as the parties, counsel, certain vendors, insurers and their counsel, mediators or arbitrators, authors or addressees of documents, potential witnesses, experts, deposition transcribers, and the court. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for business, competitive, or other litigation purposes.

The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or evidentiary protections, and it does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. Parties challenging a confidentiality designation or requesting stronger limits must give written notice explaining the grounds and raise unresolved disputes with the court. Public filings containing confidential material must include a redacted version, while the unredacted version may be filed under seal with supporting materials justifying continued sealing. The order warns that the court may unseal material if the required particularized findings are not established and is unlikely to seal material introduced at trial.

Privileged materials and enforcement

Under Federal Rules of Evidence 502(d) and 502(e), disclosure of privileged or otherwise protected discovery material does not waive the protection. The order sets procedures for notifying the other side, returning, sequestering, or destroying such material, and asserting or challenging the claimed privilege. It also requires recipients generally to return or destroy confidential discovery material within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for counsel.

The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions. The order was stipulated and agreed to by the parties and was ordered by Judge Katherine Polk Failla.