Villanueva v. MM Wine and Liquor LLC

Background

The parties submitted a stipulated protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order governs confidential information exchanged in Monica Villanueva’s lawsuit against M & M Wine and Liquor LLC, doing business as Hair Galore, and an individual defendant. The opinion text is inconsistent about that individual defendant’s surname: the case caption identifies Awilda Ruiz, while the stipulation identifies Awilda Rodriguez.

What the Order Does

The order establishes two designations: “CONFIDENTIAL” and “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY.” Confidential information may be used only for this litigation and may not be used in another proceeding or for business, commercial, or competitive purposes without consent or a further court order.

Information may be designated “CONFIDENTIAL” if it includes confidential or proprietary technical, scientific, business, financial, research, personnel, customer, or supplier information. “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” is reserved for trade secrets or particularly sensitive information that the producing party reasonably and in good faith believes could cause irreparable competitive harm if disclosed to the receiving party or a competitor.

The order excludes several subjects from confidentiality designations, including Villanueva’s salary, pay rate, and hours; the identity of her employer; Hair Galore’s ownership; information concerning Hair Galore’s position about whether it has employees engaged in interstate commerce; and information about whether Hair Galore’s annual gross sales exceed $500,000, including related tax information.

Access and Use

“CONFIDENTIAL” material may be disclosed to specified counsel and support staff, the parties and certain employees assisting with the case, qualified experts and consultants, potential witnesses, court reporters and related personnel, the court and its staff, and other persons approved in writing by the parties or by the court. “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” material is subject to narrower access, generally limited to outside counsel, one in-house counsel, qualified experts and consultants, certain witnesses, court personnel, and other approved persons.

Before receiving protected information, many experts, consultants, witnesses, and other authorized persons must receive the order, sign a written certification that they have read and understood it, and agree to the court’s jurisdiction for proceedings about compliance with the order. The order also governs deposition testimony, inadvertent disclosures, subpoenas and government requests, copying, storage, and use of protected information at trial.

Challenges and Court Filings

A party challenging a confidentiality designation must first negotiate in good faith. If the dispute remains unresolved, the receiving party may ask the court to remove or change the designation. Unless the court grants relief, the designation remains in effect; on such a motion, the producing party bears the burden of showing good cause for continued protection.

The order says confidential information filed with the court must be filed under seal only to the extent permitted by applicable rules and Judge Furman’s individual practices. In a separate limitation, the court stated that it was not authorizing the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order. The court also stated that it had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential. Any confidentiality determination would be made, if necessary, document by document, subject to the presumption of public access to judicial documents.

Disposition and Effect

Judge Jesse Furman ordered the stipulated protective order. The order binds the parties to treat materials they designate as confidential according to its terms, makes persons who breach it subject to the court’s contempt powers, and preserves the court’s jurisdiction over disputes about improper use or disclosure even after the lawsuit ends. The order is procedural and does not decide the underlying claims or whether any specific document deserves confidential treatment.