United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc.
- Victor Marrero
- 1:19-cv-04355
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In SEC v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., Magistrate Judge Gorenstein approved a confidentiality order while deleting and replacing one provision.
The parties to the case and the treatment of documents produced in discovery, including materials designated as confidential.
What happened
In United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector’s Coffee Inc., the court considered the parties’ dispute over a proposed confidentiality order for discovery materials. The disputed provision allowed parties to show confidential materials to government personnel in connection with a parallel criminal case without limiting the government’s later use of those materials.
The court explained that a confidentiality order does not decide whether particular materials legally deserve protection. Instead, it helps manage discovery and avoids repeated disputes over documents. A party may still ask for stronger protection for a specific document under the federal discovery rules, while using an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation during the dispute.
Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein approved the confidentiality order with the disputed provision, but deleted paragraph 11.c because it conflicted with his Individual Practices and replaced it with a procedure requiring a prompt application to resolve any remaining protection dispute.
The detailed version
- United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Collector's Coffee Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-04355
- Victor Marrero
- May 12, 2020
Background
The court reviewed letters submitted by the parties concerning a proposed confidentiality order governing discovery materials. The dispute focused on paragraph 14(j), which allowed a party to show materials marked “Confidential” to government personnel in connection with any parallel criminal case. The provision did not place restrictions on the Government’s later use of those documents.
Court’s reasoning
The court stated that a confidentiality order does not adjudicate any substantive claim that particular materials are entitled to protection. Rather, it is a case-management device intended to avoid repeated document-by-document disputes about discovery materials and to facilitate the discovery process.
The court explained that a party may seek a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a category of documents if producing the documents without restrictions on transmission to government personnel would cause a “clearly defined, specific and serious injury,” while production in a way that prevents that transmission would not cause such injury. Paragraph 39(e)(i) of the proposed order expressly preserved a party’s right to seek greater protection. While that dispute is pending, the document must be produced with an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” designation.
The court also stated that it would not decide hypothetical questions and noted that no objector had described documents that met the stated criteria.
Ruling
The court endorsed the confidentiality order, including paragraph 14(j). It deleted paragraph 11.c because that paragraph was inconsistent with the court’s Individual Practices. In its place, the court substituted a provision stating that, if agreement could not be reached, the party seeking protection or any other aggrieved party must promptly apply under paragraph 2.A of the court’s Individual Practices to resolve the dispute.
The order addressed discovery management and confidentiality procedures; it did not decide the merits of any substantive claim or any particular document’s entitlement to protection.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.