Haft v. General Electric Company

Background

The plaintiffs are Asher Haft and Robert Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated. The defendants are General Electric Company and Haier US Appliance Solutions, Inc. d/b/a GE Appliances. Through counsel, all parties requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The parties stipulated to the proposed terms, and the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Confidentiality Rules

The order defines “Discovery Material” as information of any kind produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes specified protected information, such as previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; trade secrets; competitively sensitive engineering, technical, or commercial information; information received from third parties in confidence; personal or intimate information; or another category later given confidential status by the court.

The order generally prohibits people subject to it from disclosing designated confidential material except as permitted. Authorized recipients include the parties and their insurers; counsel and their assistants; outside vendors working on the case; mediators and arbitrators; people identified as recipients of a document; potential witnesses; experts and others providing specialized advice; deposition stenographers; and the court and related personnel. Mediators, witnesses, experts, and certain other recipients must first receive the order and sign the attached nondisclosure agreement.

The order permits producing parties to correct an earlier failure to designate material as confidential by giving written notice and providing replacement versions within two business days. It also states that producing privileged or attorney-work-product material does not waive the protection, whether the production was inadvertent or otherwise, and that the order is intended to provide the maximum protection allowed by Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d).

Court Filings and Challenges

A party filing confidential discovery material or papers that disclose it must publicly file a redacted copy and file the unredacted copy under seal, following the court’s individual rules. A party seeking to file material under seal must submit an application and supporting declaration providing a particularized justification. The order warns that the court may unseal documents if the required specific findings are not made and that confidential treatment at trial is unlikely even if material was previously designated or sealed.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice that specifically explains the objection. If the parties cannot promptly resolve the dispute, counsel must bring it to the court under the applicable individual practice. A party may similarly request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment in extraordinary circumstances.

Use, Return, and Enforcement

Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for another purpose or proceeding. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether any document, testimony, or other evidence is admissible at trial. It also allows disclosure when required by a lawful subpoena, other compulsory process, law, or a government agency, subject to notice to the producing party when reasonably possible.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including all appeals, recipients must return or—if the producing party permits—destroy confidential material and certify that they have kept no copies or reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of specified case records and attorney work product, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties and the other persons covered by the order to comply with the stipulated confidentiality and protective terms. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on May 5, 2021. The opinion is a discovery-related procedural order and does not resolve the underlying claims.