Jem Accessories, Inc. v. JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation
- Gregory Woods
- 1:20-cv-04984
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
Jem Accessories v. JVCKENWOOD: Judge Woods approved a protective order governing confidential discovery information in the case.
The parties, their counsel and litigation personnel, and other people with access to discovery material designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.
What happened
In Jem Accessories, Inc. v. JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation, the parties asked the Southern District of New York to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The case also names Harman International Industries, Inc. as a defendant.
The court approved the parties’ confidentiality agreement after finding good cause. The order creates “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” categories, limits who may receive protected information, and sets procedures for designating, challenging, filing, returning, or destroying that information.
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the parties and other people subject to the order to follow its terms, enforceable through contempt. The order does not decide whether any information is actually confidential, whether evidence is admissible, or whether documents should ultimately remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Jem Accessories, Inc. v. JVCKENWOOD USA Corporation · No. 1:20-cv-04984
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 11, 2020
Background
JEM Accessories, Inc., doing business as Xtreme Cables, sued JVCKENWOOD USA Corp. and Harman International Industries, Inc. The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order covering the pretrial phase of the action.
Protective-order requirements
The order requires the parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting with them, and others with actual notice of the order to protect discovery material designated as either “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Violations may be punished as contempt of court.
A party may designate material as “Confidential” if it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes 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 later given confidential status by the court.
A party may use the more restrictive “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation for material meeting those criteria that includes trade secrets, proprietary information, personal or intimate information, or competitively sensitive business information whose disclosure is highly likely to cause significant harm.
The order sets procedures for marking documents, producing redacted copies, designating deposition testimony and exhibits, correcting an inadvertent failure to designate material, and responding to claims of inadvertent disclosure. It also preserves objections to discovery and confidentiality designations, privileges, protections, and evidentiary objections.
Who may receive protected information
Confidential material may be disclosed to the parties and specified related persons, counsel and their litigation staff, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court and its personnel. Several recipients must first receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement.
Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only material may be disclosed to a narrower group, primarily litigation counsel and their staff, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, experts and specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court and its personnel, subject to the order’s requirements.
Court filings, challenges, and final disposition
The order requires public redacted filings and separate sealed filings when court papers disclose protected discovery material. A party seeking to file protected material under seal must submit an application and supporting declaration giving particularized reasons. The order warns that the court may not seal material introduced at trial and has not itself determined that any designated material is confidential.
A party may challenge a confidentiality designation before trial. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they must bring it to the court under the court’s individual practices, while the material keeps its existing designation pending a ruling. The order also permits disclosure required by a lawful subpoena or other legal requirement, subject to notice provisions.
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy protected material and certify that they have not retained copies or summaries. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep an archival copy of certain case materials and work product. The court retained jurisdiction over people subject to the order to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the stipulated protective order and accompanying nondisclosure agreement. This order addresses discovery confidentiality and does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.