DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd
- Barbara Moses
- 1:17-cv-04576
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In DoubleLine Capital v. Odebrecht Finance, Judge Moses declined to require a proposed protective order’s nonconfidential discovery-use restriction and invited refiling.
The parties to DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd., including the plaintiffs and defendants who proposed the confidentiality agreement and protective order.
What happened
DoubleLine Capital LP and other plaintiffs sued Odebrecht Finance, Ltd. and other defendants in this case. The court considered the parties’ proposed confidentiality agreement and protective order.
The proposed order would have required Discovery Material, including material that was not confidential, to be used only for prosecuting, defending, or settling the case, with contempt as a possible consequence.
Judge Barbara Moses declined to impose that requirement. She said the parties could file a revised protective order that avoided the issue raised by the restriction.
The detailed version
- DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd · No. 1:17-cv-04576
- Barbara Moses
- Nov. 13, 2020
Background
The court received and reviewed the parties’ proposed stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The proposed order addressed the use of “Discovery Material.”
Issue
The court considered whether to require that Discovery Material—even material that was not confidential—be used solely for prosecuting, defending, or attempting to settle the action, with contempt as a possible consequence for violating that restriction.
Ruling
The court declined to impose that requirement. It cited a prior Southern District of New York decision directing parties to modify a protective order so that nonconfidential discovery materials could be used for purposes other than prosecuting or defending the action. The court stated that the parties could refile a proposed protective order that did not present the issue raised in paragraph 1. The order did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.