Szechenyi-Jin v. AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company

Background

The court entered a discovery confidentiality order because discovery was likely to involve confidential information. The order applies to the parties and third parties covered by it. It does not decide the underlying claims in the lawsuit.

Confidentiality designations and permitted use

A producing party or third party may designate information as “Confidential” if it contains trade secrets, competitively sensitive business information, private personal information, information received from third parties in confidence, or information the producing party in good faith believes is entitled to protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G). More sensitive material may be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” when disclosure is highly likely to cause significant harm to an individual or to a business or competitive position.

Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action. It may be disclosed only to listed categories of people, including outside and relevant in-house counsel, qualified experts and consultants who sign a nondisclosure agreement, litigation-support personnel, the court and its personnel, certain deponents, approved vendors, and parties as defined by the order. Attorneys’ Eyes Only material may be disclosed only to the receiving party’s outside counsel unless the producing party’s counsel agrees in advance or the court orders disclosure.

Challenges, accidental disclosures, and case conclusion

The order provides a written-objection process for challenging a confidentiality designation. The designating party generally must respond within 14 days, after which the parties must confer and follow the applicable local rules if the dispute remains unresolved. It also states that accidental disclosure of confidential or privileged material does not by itself waive confidentiality, privilege, or work-product protection, subject to the procedures in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Information already public, already properly known to the receiving party, or obtained from another lawful nonconfidential source is not treated as confidential under the order. After the litigation ends, covered people must return or, if requested, destroy specified confidential materials, although counsel may retain complete copies of transcripts and pleadings for archival purposes subject to the order. The order remains effective after the case ends unless modified by the court or by a written stipulation filed with the court.

Court’s limitation on sealing

The court stated that it had not reviewed the documents referenced in the stipulation and therefore made no finding that they were confidential. Any such determination would be made, if necessary, on a document-by-document basis, subject to the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court did not authorize filing documents under seal without a prior court order.

Disposition

Judge Jesse Furman entered the discovery confidentiality order. This was a discovery-related procedural order, not a ruling on the merits of the claims.