Noxell Corporation v. Next Step Group Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-11460
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 19
In Noxell Corporation v. Next Step Group Inc., Judge Woods entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery information in the lawsuit.
The parties to the action, their counsel and representatives, and other people who receive or have actual notice of confidential discovery material are bound by the protective order. The order also establishes procedures affecting the court's handling of confidential filings and future discovery disputes.
What happened
Noxell Corporation v. Next Step Group Inc. is a lawsuit in which the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery. The attached agreement describes the underlying lawsuit as involving trademark infringement and unfair competition claims.
The parties agreed to rules for labeling discovery materials as confidential, limiting who could receive them, and using them only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. The order also explains procedures for challenging confidentiality labels, filing confidential materials with the court, responding to subpoenas, and returning or destroying protected materials after the case ends.
Judge Gregory H. Woods found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order and ordered the parties and other notified persons to follow it. The order does not decide the claims, waive objections or privileges, or determine whether any evidence is admissible, and it states that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order.
The detailed version
- Noxell Corporation v. Next Step Group Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11460
- Gregory Woods
- June 30, 2020
Background
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. The order concerns Noxell Corporation as plaintiff and Next Step Group Inc., GMA Accessories, Inc. doing business as Cover Girl Active and Capelli New York, Saramax Apparel Group, Inc., Harmon Group, LLC, and Earthbound LLC as defendants.
Confidentiality Designations
The order permits a producing party to label only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes specified types of previously undisclosed information. These categories include financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or product-development plans, marketing plans, and personal or intimate information. The court may later grant confidential status to other categories.
The producing party or its counsel must clearly mark confidential material and, when appropriate, provide a public copy with the confidential information redacted. Deposition testimony and exhibits may be designated during the deposition or within 30 days afterward. During that 30-day period, the entire deposition transcript must be treated as confidential. A party may also correct an earlier failure to designate material by giving written notice and providing replacement versions within two business days.
Permitted Disclosures and Use
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed to the parties, insurers, counsel, litigation support personnel, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified on a document, potential witnesses, experts, specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Witnesses, experts, advisers, mediators, and arbitrators generally must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recipients may use the material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for another purpose or litigation.
The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or other protections, and it does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. It also states that a confidentiality designation is not a court finding that the material is actually confidential. The court warned that it may not seal material introduced at trial merely because it was previously designated confidential.
Court Filings and Challenges
A party filing confidential material or papers that reveal it must publicly file a redacted version and submit an unredacted version under seal. A party seeking to file material under seal must provide an application and supporting declaration explaining on a particularized basis why sealing is justified. Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional limits, such as attorney-eyes-only treatment, by written notice stating the grounds. Unresolved disputes must be brought to the court under the court's individual practices.
The order also permits disclosure in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process, subject to notice to the producing party when reasonably possible and, if time allows, at least 10 days before disclosure. The producing party bears the burden of opposing the requested disclosure if it chooses to do so.
Duration and Enforcement
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party's permission, destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they retained no copies or summaries. Litigation counsel may keep archival copies of specified case materials and attorney work product, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives the termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.
Ruling
Judge Gregory H. Woods found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order and entered the parties' stipulated protective order on June 30, 2020. The order governed the handling of confidential discovery materials; it did not resolve the underlying trademark infringement, unfair competition, or other claims.
Read the full 19-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.