Global Refining Group, Inc. v. PMD Analysis Inc.

Background

Global Refining Group, Inc. brought this action against PMD Analysis Inc. a/k/a Analyse PMD Inc., Robert Turcotte, and Monica Armstrong. The parties, through counsel, jointly requested 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 pretrial process in which parties exchange information and evidence.

Protective order

The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order and ordered the parties and other covered persons to comply with it. A producing party may designate only portions of discovery material that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain specified confidential information, including previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, product-development information, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.

The order limits disclosure of designated material to listed recipients, including the parties, certain insurers and counsel, counsel and their staff, vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified on a document, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Potential witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators generally must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for another purpose or litigation.

The order provides procedures for correcting an omitted confidentiality designation, objecting to a designation, and requesting stricter limits such as attorney-eyes-only treatment. It also requires public redacted filings when confidential material is submitted to the court, while unredacted versions must be filed under seal with a particularized justification. The court warned that it may not seal material introduced at trial and stated that it had not determined that any designated material was actually confidential.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep certain archival case files, but those files remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods issued the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on May 28, 2021. The order governs discovery confidentiality and does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims, defenses, or evidentiary disputes.