Miller v. Participatory Safety, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-06994
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Miller v. Participatory Safety, Inc., Judge Castel approved a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The plaintiffs, Participatory Safety, Inc., the named and unnamed parties involved in the case, their counsel and litigation-support personnel, authorized consultants and experts, certain employees and witnesses, and qualifying third parties who disclose materials and agree to follow the order.
What happened
Miller v. Participatory Safety, Inc. involved a jointly agreed request for rules protecting confidential information exchanged during the case. The court found good cause for issuing the order.
The order allows parties and certain authorized people to receive materials labeled “Confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” It limits use of those materials to the case, sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and requires materials to be returned or destroyed after the case and appeals end.
Judge P. Kevin Castel ordered that documents could not be filed under seal without a separate court order and required specific procedures for sealing requests. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or counterclaim.
The detailed version
- Miller v. Participatory Safety, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-06994
- P. Castel
- Dec. 19, 2019
Background
The plaintiffs were Eddie Miller, Digital Marketing & Events, Inc., USMarketing.com, Inc., and Damons List, LLC. The defendants were Participatory Safety, Inc. and John Doe Nos. 1-10. Participatory Safety also asserted a counterclaim against the plaintiffs. The parties submitted a stipulated motion for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits limits on discovery disclosures when good cause exists.
Protective-order terms
The order permits either party, and qualifying third parties who agree to be bound by it, to label discovery materials “Confidential” or “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only” when the producing party has a good-faith basis to believe the material contains protected confidential commercial information. Covered material includes documents, interrogatory answers, document-request responses, deposition transcripts, admissions responses, subpoenaed materials, trade secrets, and confidential financial or commercial information.
Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including outside counsel and their support staff, certain receiving-party employees, consultants or experts who sign a nondisclosure undertaking, certain witnesses, the court and its staff, court reporters, and specified litigation-support vendors. Attorneys’-eyes-only material may be disclosed to a narrower group and generally requires the recipient to sign the undertaking. Covered material may be used only for purposes directly related to the case, including any appeal.
The order establishes procedures for disputing confidentiality designations. The parties must first try to resolve disagreements informally; unresolved disputes may be presented to the court. Deposition materials are temporarily treated as attorneys’-eyes-only for 30 days after counsel receives the transcript, during which time the parties may make specific designations. The order also addresses later corrections to designations, inadvertent disclosure of privileged or protected material, subpoenas issued in other proceedings, and the return or destruction of protected material after the case, including appeals, ends.
Sealing and disposition
The order states that no document may be filed under seal without another court order addressing the specific material. A sealing application must include affidavits and a legal memorandum addressing the applicable sealing standards, including the standard discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The order also sets advance-notice procedures when one party seeks to use another party’s confidential information.
Judge P. Kevin Castel found good cause for an appropriately tailored protective order and ordered the stated confidentiality procedures. This was a discovery-related order; the opinion did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims or Participatory Safety’s counterclaim.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.