Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:20-cv-09892
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Symphony Investment Partners v. Keeco, Judge Daniels entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their use.
Symphony Investment Partners, Inc., Keeco LLC, Richard Platt, their counsel and representatives, and other people who receive or have notice of discovery materials covered by the protective order.
What happened
Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC concerns the parties’ jointly requested protective order for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The parties agreed to the order’s terms, and the court found good cause to issue it.
The order limits disclosure of designated confidential materials, creates a more restrictive “Attorney’s Eyes Only” category, and permits disclosure only to specified people such as the parties, counsel, certain experts, witnesses, and the court. It also establishes procedures for challenging designations, filing confidential materials, responding to subpoenas, returning or destroying materials after the case ends, and enforcing the order.
Judge George B. Daniels ordered the parties and other people covered by the order to follow these requirements, while explaining that the designations did not guarantee that materials would later be sealed or kept confidential in court.
The detailed version
- Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC · No. 1:20-cv-09892
- George Daniels
- May 12, 2021
Background
Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. sued Keeco LLC and Richard Platt. The parties, through their lawyers, jointly asked the court to issue a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order covering the pretrial phase of the case.
What the Order Provides
The order requires the parties, their lawyers, employees, agents, and other people with notice of the order to protect discovery materials designated as “CONFIDENTIAL.” A producing party may designate only material it reasonably and honestly believes includes categories such as nonpublic financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, nonpublic business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
The order also creates a “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL—ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” designation for especially sensitive trade-secret, personal, commercial, business, proprietary, or financial information. The designating party must believe in good faith that disclosure under the ordinary confidential designation would create a real danger of prejudice.
Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation-support personnel, outside service providers, mediators or arbitrators, certain authors or recipients of documents, potential witnesses, experts and other specialized advisers, deposition transcription services, and the court. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. The order also sets procedures for designating deposition testimony and written discovery, correcting an inadvertent failure to designate material, and replacing previously produced material with designated copies.
Limits and Enforcement
The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or protection from disclosure, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial. The court expressly stated that it had not made a final finding that any designated material was confidential and retained discretion to decide whether to seal or otherwise protect material submitted to the court.
Parties must publicly file redacted versions of confidential court submissions and separately seek permission to file unredacted versions under seal or in redacted form. A party may object to a confidentiality designation, but the designation remains in place while the dispute is submitted to the court. Confidential materials may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for another lawsuit or purpose.
The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoenas or other legal process, precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and the return or destruction of confidential materials within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals. Lawyers specifically retained for the action may keep certain archival case files, but those files remain subject to the order. The order survives the end of the case, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose sanctions for contempt.
Ruling
Judge George B. Daniels entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on May 12, 2021.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.