Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Atlas Air, Inc.
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:20-cv-04992
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Judge Seibel entered a protective order in Certain Interested Underwriters v. Atlas Air governing confidential discovery materials and their use.
The parties, their insurers and counsel, experts, consultants, witnesses, vendors, third parties providing discovery, and other persons subject to the order are affected by its confidentiality, disclosure, use, filing, return, and enforcement requirements.
What happened
In Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd’s v. Atlas Air, Inc., the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The order limits who may receive information marked confidential and requires certain recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements. The information may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, and the order sets procedures for filing confidential materials under seal, challenging confidentiality designations, and returning or destroying protected materials after the case ends.
Judge Cathy Seibel found good cause and entered the stipulated protective order. The order does not decide the underlying claims, waive objections or privileges, or determine whether evidence is admissible.
The detailed version
- Certain Interested Underwriters at Lloyd's v. Atlas Air, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-04992
- Cathy Seibel
- Oct. 16, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The order states that the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Confidential information
A producing party may designate material as confidential only when it reasonably and in good faith believes that the material includes specified types of information, including previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; or another category the court later protects. The order provides procedures for marking confidential material, redacting copies for public use, and designating deposition testimony and exhibits.
The order permits disclosure of confidential discovery material to specified recipients, including the parties, insurers and their counsel, counsel and litigation support personnel, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain document-related persons, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Mediators, arbitrators, witnesses, and experts who receive the material must first sign a nondisclosure agreement in the form attached to the order.
Use and filing restrictions
Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoena or other compulsory process, requires reasonable precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and establishes procedures for objecting to confidentiality designations or requesting additional limits such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment.
A party filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The order states that the court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding. It also warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies, subject to the order’s exception for archival copies retained by specifically retained attorneys. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Ruling
Judge Cathy Seibel entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order. The order does not rule on the merits of the parties’ dispute, waive discovery objections or privileges, or decide the admissibility of any evidence.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.