Gold v. International Intimates, Inc.
- James Oetken
- 1:20-cv-08632
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Gold v. International Intimates, Judge Oetken entered a protective order governing confidential discovery in the parties’ case.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, and other people with notice of the order or access to discovery material designated as confidential.
What happened
Gold v. International Intimates, Inc. concerns the parties’ request for a court order protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information disclosed during discovery. The parties agreed to the order’s terms.
The order permits certain financial, business, ownership, personal, and intimate information to be marked confidential if the producing party reasonably and honestly believes it qualifies. Confidential material may generally be shared only with specified people, including the parties, counsel, certain vendors, witnesses, experts, mediators, and the court, subject to the order’s conditions.
Judge James Oetken found good cause and ordered the parties and other people with notice to follow the confidentiality requirements. The order also sets procedures for filing confidential material, challenging confidentiality designations, using the material only for this case and related appeals, and returning or destroying it after the case ends.
The detailed version
- Gold v. International Intimates, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-08632
- James Oetken
- Mar. 3, 2021
Background
The plaintiff is Oliver Gold. The defendants are International Intimates, Inc.; Rene Rofe, in his individual and professional capacities; and Marc Simhon, in his individual and professional capacities. 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 disclosed during discovery.
Order
The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the action. The order allows a producing party to designate as confidential only material it reasonably and in good faith believes contains previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing information, personal or intimate information about an individual, or another category that the court later gives confidential status.
The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material, including procedures for deposition transcripts. A producing party may later correct an earlier failure to designate material as confidential by notifying the other parties and providing replacement versions. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or protection, and it does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial.
People subject to the order may disclose confidential material only to listed recipients and, in specified circumstances, only after the recipient signs a non-disclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used solely for prosecuting or defending this action and related appeals. The order also addresses compelled disclosure, precautions against unauthorized disclosure, return or destruction of material within 60 days after final disposition, continued obligations after the litigation ends, and the court’s continuing authority to enforce the order.
Court filings and challenges
A party filing confidential discovery material must publicly file a redacted version and follow the court’s procedures for seeking permission to file an unredacted version under seal. The order states that the court has not determined that any designated material is actually confidential and is unlikely to seal or otherwise protect material introduced into evidence at trial without the required findings. Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits, and unresolved disputes are to be presented to the court under its individual practices.
Disposition
Judge J. Paul Oetken ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to comply with its terms, subject to contempt. The opinion is a discovery-related protective order; it does not decide the underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.