DoubleLine Capital LP v. Odebrecht Finance, Ltd

Background

The plaintiffs are DoubleLine Capital LP, DoubleLine Income Solutions Fund, and DoubleLine Funds Trust on behalf of three identified fund series. The defendants are Construtora Norberto Odebrecht, S.A., Odebrecht Engenharia e Construção S.A., and Odebrecht S.A. Through their attorneys, the parties stipulated to a confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the action.

The protective order

The order covers information produced or disclosed during discovery that a producing party reasonably and in good faith designates as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” Confidential information may include previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information concerning a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, and other categories later given confidential status by the court.

A producing party may designate information as “Highly Confidential” when it qualifies as Confidential and disclosure to the parties would cause irreparable business harm or detriment, including when nondisclosure would reasonably appear to conflict with applicable law. The order requires protected portions of ordinary discovery materials to be marked and requires a version for future public use with the protected information redacted. It provides separate procedures for designating deposition testimony and exhibits, including a 30-day period after a deposition during which the entire transcript is treated as protected.

Confidential information may be disclosed to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel, in-house counsel, outside counsel and their personnel, vendors, mediators, arbitrators, document authors or recipients, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Highly Confidential information may not be disclosed to the parties or their insurers, but may be disclosed to the other listed categories. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Limitations and enforcement

The order states that it does not waive objections to discovery, waive privilege or other protection, or decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. The court made no final finding that any particular discovery material is confidential and retained discretion over whether to give material confidential treatment. The order warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed without the required specific findings that closure is essential and narrowly tailored.

The parties may object in writing to confidentiality designations before trial and may seek additional disclosure limits. The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoenas, compulsory process, law, or government agencies, while requiring notice to the producing party when reasonably possible. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy protected materials and certify that they retained no copies or other reproductions, subject to an archival-copy exception for specifically retained litigation attorneys. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Barbara Moses ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to comply with the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The opinion is a discovery-related procedural order; it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.