Stross v. Tango Publishing Corporation
- Loretta Preska
- 1:19-cv-02189
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Stross v. Tango Publishing Corporation, Judge Preska entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their use, disclosure, filing, and return.
The order affects Alexander Stross, Tango Publishing Corporation, the other named defendants, their representatives and counsel, experts, consultants, vendors, witnesses, mediators or arbitrators, third parties providing discovery, court personnel, and anyone else covered by the order who has actual or constructive notice of it.
What happened
Stross v. Tango Publishing Corporation concerns the parties’ agreed request for protection of private and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The order limits disclosure of designated confidential materials, permits their use only for this case and appeals, and sets procedures for challenging designations and filing materials under seal. It also requires recipients generally to return or destroy the materials after the case ends.
Judge Loretta Preska found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the confidentiality requirements, enforceable through contempt. The order does not decide the claims’ merits.
The detailed version
- Stross v. Tango Publishing Corporation · No. 1:19-cv-02189
- Loretta Preska
- Dec. 10, 2019
Background
The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order covering the pretrial phase of the case.
Protective Order
The order covers discovery materials designated as confidential. A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes categories such as previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, or personal or intimate information. The order also allows the court to give confidential status to other categories later.
Covered people generally may disclose confidential material only to specified recipients, including the parties, counsel, certain vendors, insurers and their counsel, people identified as document recipients, potential witnesses, experts, deposition reporters, mediators or arbitrators, and the court. Certain recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals, not for business, competitive, or other litigation purposes.
The order establishes procedures for designating deposition testimony and previously produced material, objecting to confidentiality designations, and requesting additional limits such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment. It also states that confidentiality designations do not waive objections or privileges and do not decide whether evidence may be admitted at trial.
Court Filings and Enforcement
A party filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and submit the unredacted version under seal, along with the required explanation supporting continued sealing. The order states that the court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding, and that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.
Within 60 days after the final resolution of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they kept no copies or summaries. Counsel specifically retained for the case may keep certain archival materials, which remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Ruling
Judge Loretta A. Preska ordered the parties and all other people covered by the order to comply with these confidentiality terms. This was a discovery-related procedural order; it did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.