Wine of Japan Import, Inc. v. JFC International, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:20-cv-02497
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Wine of Japan Import v. JFC International, Judge Gardephe entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their disclosure.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, experts, potential witnesses, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, third parties providing discovery, and others subject to the order must follow its confidentiality, use, handling, and disclosure requirements.
What happened
Wine of Japan Import, Inc. v. JFC International, Inc. involved all parties’ request for a court order protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information disclosed during discovery. The parties agreed to the order’s terms, and the court found good cause to issue it.
The order limits disclosure of materials labeled “Confidential” or “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” It permits disclosure to specified people, requires safeguards and nondisclosure agreements in some circumstances, allows challenges to confidentiality designations, and limits use of the materials to this case and related appeals.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe ordered the confidentiality and protective terms on August 14, 2020. The order also sets procedures for sealed filings, return or destruction of protected materials after the case ends, and enforcement through contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Wine of Japan Import, Inc. v. JFC International, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-02497
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 14, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action and entered the stipulated order.
Confidentiality designations
The order covers “Discovery Material,” meaning information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate material “Confidential” if it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes previously undisclosed financial information, previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
A producing party may use the more restrictive “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation for trade secrets and specified competitive information, confidential financial information, and internal corporate governance documents and organizational charts. The order requires protected portions to be marked clearly and permits production of a redacted copy for future public use.
Disclosure and challenges
Confidential material may be disclosed only to categories listed in the order, including the parties and their insurance-related representatives, case counsel and support staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Attorneys’-eyes-only material may be disclosed only to the attorneys of record and associated legal personnel.
A receiving party may object to a confidentiality designation and may ask the court to remove it if the producing party does not agree. Until the court rules, the material remains protected as designated. The producing party bears the burden of showing that the designation is proper. The order also permits a party to correct a missed designation before trial and requires extracts and summaries of protected material to receive the same confidential treatment.
Court filings and use of materials
The order does not waive objections to discovery or privileges and does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial. Protected materials may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes. The order also addresses disclosure required by subpoena, other compulsory process, law, or a government agency, subject to notice requirements.
A party filing protected material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party seeking continued sealing must simultaneously provide a letter brief and supporting declaration explaining the need for sealing. The court retained discretion over whether to keep material confidential when submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding and warned that it was unlikely to seal material introduced at trial without the required findings.
Duration and enforcement
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy protected materials and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Case counsel may retain specified archival materials, which remain subject to the order. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce its obligations or impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Related prior materials
Materials designated under an earlier state-court stipulation and order in a related proceeding are treated as designated under this order, while preserving the receiving party’s ability to challenge those designations.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.