Bah v. Apple Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:19-cv-03539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 21
In Bah v. Apple Inc., Judge Castel entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and its use.
Ousmane Bah, Apple Inc., Security Industry Specialists, Inc., their counsel, and other people authorized to receive or handle protected discovery materials.
What happened
Bah v. Apple Inc. involved a request by Ousmane Bah and Apple Inc. and Security Industry Specialists, Inc. for an order protecting confidential information expected to be exchanged during discovery.
The order allows parties to designate materials as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” It limits how those materials may be used, who may access them, how challenges to designations are handled, and what happens if materials are disclosed accidentally or after the case ends.
Judge P. Kevin Castel found good cause and entered the stipulated protective order on April 30, 2020. The order does not decide the underlying claims and leaves the court responsible for resolving future disputes about protected materials.
The detailed version
- Bah v. Apple Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-03539
- P. Castel
- Apr. 30, 2020
Background
The parties anticipated that discovery would involve confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, and commercially sensitive information. They agreed to a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the court found good cause to enter it.
Main Requirements
The order defines “Discovery Material” broadly to include documents, electronically stored information, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things produced or disclosed in the case. Protected material may be designated either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”
Material designated “CONFIDENTIAL” may generally be disclosed to outside counsel, the plaintiff or appropriate defense representatives, approved experts and consultants, certain witnesses, court personnel, mediators, trial-support personnel, mock jurors under confidentiality agreements, and others with the producing party’s written consent. “CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” material is subject to greater restrictions. It may generally be disclosed only to permitted outside counsel, certain defense in-house counsel, approved experts and consultants, court personnel, mediators, trial-support personnel, and other persons with the producing party’s written consent. The plaintiff is not listed as an authorized recipient of attorneys’-eyes-only material.
Protected material may be used only for this case or a related appeal. It must be stored securely in the United States and may not be exported outside the United States or released to a foreign national. The order also addresses deposition designations, challenges to confidentiality designations, subpoenas, court filings, inadvertent disclosure of privileged material, mistaken failure to designate material, and unauthorized disclosure.
Filing and Final Disposition
Protected material may not be filed publicly without the producing party’s permission or a further court order. Filing under seal requires a separate order addressing the specific material and an application meeting the applicable sealing standards. Within 90 days after final disposition, each party must return or destroy the producing party’s discovery material, subject to limited archival retention by outside counsel. The confidentiality obligations continue after the case ends unless changed by written agreement or court order.
Ruling
Judge P. Kevin Castel entered the stipulated protective order. The order preserves the parties’ ability to seek additional protection, challenge designations, object to discovery or evidence, and ask the court to modify the order. It is a discovery-management order and does not resolve the merits of Bah’s claims.
Read the full 21-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.