Abrams v. HBM Prenscia Inc.

Background

The parties submitted a stipulation and proposed protective order for the court’s review and endorsement. The document concerns discovery and other information disclosed in connection with the litigation. The provided text does not describe the underlying claims or defenses.

Terms of the Protective Order

The order defines “discovery material” broadly to include written, recorded, graphic, and electronic material disclosed or produced in discovery or at trial, including materials covered by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, interrogatory answers, responses to requests for admission, deposition testimony, transcripts, and exhibits. Publicly available documents are excluded.

Protected information consists of discovery material designated either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Confidential information is information that the designating party believes in good faith is protected under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including certain proprietary, business, technical, commercial, or financial information. The attorneys’-eyes-only category covers especially sensitive financial, licensing, or technical information identified in the order.

The order limits use of protected information to this litigation, including preparation, settlement, trial, appeal, retrial, and enforcement of a judgment. It identifies categories of people who may receive confidential information, including the parties, specified outside and in-house legal personnel, qualified experts, certain witnesses, the court and its personnel, and litigation-support vendors. Attorneys’-eyes-only information may be disclosed to a narrower group that excludes the parties and experts.

Experts and certain vendors must sign written acknowledgments agreeing to follow the order. People receiving protected information are barred from unauthorized disclosure and agree to the court’s jurisdiction for proceedings concerning compliance with or violations of the order.

Challenges, Accidental Disclosures, and Court Filings

A receiving party may challenge a confidentiality designation after first trying to resolve the dispute informally. If the dispute is not resolved within seven days after written notice, the receiving party may seek relief from the court, while the designating party bears the burden of supporting the designation.

The order provides procedures for correcting inadvertent confidentiality designations and for returning inadvertently produced privileged or otherwise protected information. It also requires parties seeking to file protected information under seal to comply with the court’s procedures and obtain a further court order addressing the specific material. The order states that a confidentiality designation alone does not permit filing material under seal.

The restrictions generally continue after the litigation ends. Subject to the order’s terms, protected material must be returned or destroyed within 60 days after the litigation concludes, with certain listed materials excluded from that requirement. The order is governed by New York law and remains effective until modified, superseded, or terminated as specified in the order.

Ruling

Judge Valerie Caproni entered the order with the notation “SO ORDERED” on February 26, 2020. The court therefore approved the parties’ stipulated protective order. The ruling addressed discovery confidentiality and filing procedures; it did not resolve the merits of the lawsuit.