Sofiev v. TransUnion, LLC

Background

Mark Sofiev brought this action against Trans Union, LLC, and JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery.

Order’s Terms

The court ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to protect discovery material designated as “Confidential.” A producing party may make that designation only for material it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information; trade secrets or other proprietary information; previously undisclosed personal or intimate information; or another category that the court later gives confidential status.

The order sets procedures for marking confidential material, including deposition testimony and exhibits. It allows disclosure only to specified recipients, including the parties, counsel, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, identified document recipients, potential witnesses, experts, deposition transcription services, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. The order also addresses subpoenas and other compulsory process, requires precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and generally requires recipients to return or destroy the material within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep certain archival materials subject to the order.

The order provides procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and requesting additional limits on disclosure. It requires public redacted versions and sealed unredacted versions for court submissions containing confidential material, along with a particularized justification for sealing. The court stated that it had not itself found any discovery material confidential and retained discretion over whether to give such material confidential treatment, particularly if it is introduced at trial.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order and entered the stipulated protective order. The order does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims, determine the ultimate confidentiality of any material, or rule on the admissibility of evidence. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions for violations.