Phillies v. Harrison/Erickson, Incorporated
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-07239
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Phillies v. Harrison/Erickson, Judge Netburn entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and its use in the case.
The Phillies, Harrison/Erickson, Incorporated, Harrison Erickson, Wayde Harrison, Bonnie Erickson, and non-parties who provide information in this litigation may be affected by the order’s confidentiality, disclosure, use, and destruction requirements.
What happened
Phillies v. Harrison/Erickson, Incorporated concerns the parties’ agreement to protect confidential information exchanged during discovery, including trade secrets, financial information, personnel information, and other business information.
The order limits use of protected material to prosecuting, defending, or settling this case. It specifies who may receive the material, procedures for labeling and challenging confidentiality designations, requirements for handling accidental disclosures, and destruction of protected material after the case ends.
Judge Netburn entered the stipulated protective order on November 19, 2019. The order addressed discovery confidentiality and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Phillies v. Harrison/Erickson, Incorporated · No. 1:19-cv-07239
- Victor Marrero
- Nov. 19, 2019
Background
The Phillies and the defendants—Harrison/Erickson, Incorporated; Harrison Erickson; Wayde Harrison; and Bonnie Erickson—stipulated to a protective order. They told the court that discovery could require disclosure of confidential commercial and business information, including trade secrets, financial and competitive information, personnel information, and research, development, manufacturing, process, marketing, and other business information.
Order’s requirements
The order protects only information that the designating party reasonably and in good faith believes qualifies for confidential treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c); it does not automatically protect every discovery disclosure. Protected material must generally be labeled “CONFIDENTIAL.” The order also provides procedures for designating deposition testimony and other materials, correcting an inadvertent failure to designate information, and handling accidentally produced attorney-client communications or attorney work product.
Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle this litigation. Disclosure is limited to specified people, including counsel, certain employees, experts who sign an agreement to be bound, the court and its personnel, court reporters, litigation-support vendors, and certain witnesses. The order requires parties to address confidentiality challenges through a meet-and-confer process before seeking court relief, and it imposes notification and retrieval duties after an unauthorized disclosure.
The order also establishes procedures for protected material subpoenaed in other litigation and for filing protected material with the court. Within 60 days after final termination of the action, receiving parties generally must destroy protected material and certify the destruction, although counsel may retain archival copies of specified litigation materials subject to the order’s continuing confidentiality obligations. Non-parties may invoke the order’s protections by designating information as confidential and signing the order.
Disposition
The court entered the stipulated protective order. The order governs discovery and confidentiality; it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. The document is signed “Netburn, United States Magistrate Judge.”
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.