Korajkic v. Sobo & Sobo LLP
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-02749
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Andra Korajric v. Sobo & Sobo LLP, Judge Seibel entered a protective order governing confidential discovery information.
The parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting in concert with them, and others with actual notice of the order, including certain recipients of confidential discovery material.
What happened
Andra Korajric v. Sobo & Sobo LLP concerns the parties’ agreed request for rules protecting confidential and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The order limits disclosure of designated confidential material, permits use only for this lawsuit and appeals, and establishes procedures for objections, court filings, subpoenas, accidental disclosure of privileged material, and returning or destroying materials after the case ends.
Judge Cathy Seibel found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order, while retaining authority to enforce it. The order does not decide whether any material is actually confidential or whether evidence may be admitted at trial.
The detailed version
- Korajkic v. Sobo & Sobo LLP · No. 7:20-cv-02749
- Cathy Seibel
- Aug. 20, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for confidential and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case. The opinion identifies the defendants as Sobo & Sobo LLP and Raymond J. Iata, in his individual and official capacities.
Order’s requirements
The order covers discovery material designated as “Confidential.” A producing party may designate previously undisclosed financial information, client information, nonpublic-company ownership or control information, business and marketing plans, commercial information, personal or intimate information, medical and legal records, and certain attorney-client communications. The producing party must mark protected material or provide written notice of the designation, and it may later correct an inadvertent failure to designate material.
Covered recipients may disclose confidential material only to specified people, including the parties, insurers and their counsel, counsel retained for the case, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, authors and recipients of documents, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. In several categories, the recipient must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The order also provides procedures for challenging a confidentiality designation and for requesting additional limits on disclosure. Parties filing confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and follow the court’s procedures for filing an unredacted version under seal. The order states that the court has made no finding that designated material is actually confidential and retains discretion over confidential treatment.
Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order preserves objections to discovery, privileges, proprietary rights, and arguments about admissibility. It addresses responses to subpoenas and other compulsory process, requires precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and protects against waiver of privilege from inadvertent production if the producing party follows the stated procedure.
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or summaries. Attorneys may keep certain archival case files and work product, but those materials remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Cathy Seibel ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to comply with the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order governs discovery and confidentiality; it does not resolve the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.