Diallo v. CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC

Background

Mamadou Alpha Diallo and CoreLogic Rental Property Solutions, LLC, through their lawyers, submitted a proposed stipulated protective order. They anticipated exchanging documents and information involving CoreLogic’s research and development, commercial, employee, technology, and proprietary information, as well as confidential credit and background-check information. The order also provides that documents and information concerning consumers other than Diallo must be treated as confidential.

Protective-order terms

The order permits a party’s lawyer to designate information as confidential when the lawyer determines in good faith that the designation is necessary to protect the client’s interests. Designated materials generally may be used only for this lawsuit. Disclosure is limited to specified recipients, including the parties and their counsel, litigation-support employees, the court, jurors, consultants, experts, and certain witnesses. Some recipients must first sign an agreement promising to follow the order.

The order establishes a higher “Confidential—Attorney’s Eyes Only” category for information that the producing party believes would be highly harmful if disclosed to a business competitor. Those materials generally may be disclosed only to outside counsel, certain litigation experts, the court and its personnel, court reporters and vendors, original sources, and specified fact witnesses. The order includes additional notice and objection procedures before certain witnesses may receive those materials, and it bars disclosure to current or former employees, agents, or affiliates of any credit clinic or credit repair organization unless the designating party consents in writing or the court orders disclosure.

The order also addresses challenges to confidentiality designations, use of protected materials at trial, inadvertent production of documents claimed to be privileged, and the return or destruction of protected materials after the litigation. It allows parties to seek additional protection, object to discovery, request an order compelling production, or ask the court to modify the order. Third parties responding to discovery may elect to be bound by the order by giving written notice.

Court’s ruling

Judge Jesse Furman ordered the parties’ stipulation. The court expressly stated that it had not reviewed the documents covered by the order and therefore made no finding that any document was confidential. Whether a document is confidential may be decided later on a document-by-document basis under the court’s rules and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court further stated that it did not approve any provision that purported to let the parties file documents under seal without a prior court order.

Disposition

The court entered the stipulated protective order. This was a discovery and confidentiality ruling; the opinion text does not decide the underlying claims.