United States of America ex rel. Steven M. Camburn v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals…

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought rules protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery or otherwise produced in the case. The order states that the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase.

What the Order Covers

The order allows a producing party to designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes falls within listed categories, including previously undisclosed financial information, business and marketing plans, pharmaceutical formulas and processes, trade secrets, protected health information, personal data, and information of a personal or intimate nature. It also covers materials labeled confidential that were produced to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York in response to a civil investigative demand or subpoena connected to the investigation described in the order.

Confidential material must not be disclosed except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties, their insurers and external auditors; counsel and support staff retained for the case; certain vendors; mediators and arbitrators; document authors and addressees; certain witnesses; experts and other specialized advisers; deposition transcription staff; and the court. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators generally must first sign a nondisclosure agreement, and witnesses may not retain copies of confidential material.

Challenges, Court Filings, and Privilege

The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material, designating deposition testimony, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, and objecting to a confidentiality designation. It requires parties seeking to file sealed or redacted materials to follow the court’s electronic-filing procedures and states that redactions or sealing must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the presumption of public access to judicial documents. The parties’ agreement alone is not enough to overcome that presumption.

The order also provides that confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. It does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or other protections, and it does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. If privileged material is inadvertently disclosed, the order requires prompt notice, return or destruction within five business days after a request, and later preparation of a privilege log. The order states that the disclosure will not waive the applicable privilege or protection.

Disposition and Effect

The court ordered the parties and other covered persons to comply with the protective order. Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they retained no copies or summaries. Counsel specifically retained for the case may keep limited archival copies subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.

This was a discovery and confidentiality order, not a decision on the merits of the claims between the parties. The text is signed by Gabriel W. Gorenstein, United States Magistrate Judge, even though the supplied case metadata identifies Kimba Wood as the judge.