Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled July 2, 2021

Somnia, Inc. v. Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC

Judge
Cathy Seibel
Docket
7:19-cv-08983
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
11
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Somnia v. Change Healthcare, Judge Halpern entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and related disclosures.

Who this affects

Somnia, Inc., Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC, PST Services, Inc., and anyone who receives or has notice of confidential discovery material in the action, including counsel, experts, witnesses, vendors, and other listed recipients.

What happened

Somnia, Inc. sued Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC and PST Services, Inc. The parties jointly asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.

The order allows parties to mark certain financial, business, personal, health, proprietary, and other legally protected information as confidential. It limits disclosure to specified people, requires nondisclosure agreements for some recipients, and sets procedures for filing confidential materials with the court, challenging confidentiality designations, and handling inadvertently disclosed privileged information.

The court found good cause and entered the stipulated protective order. Judge Philip M. Halpern stated that confidential materials may be used only for this case and related appeals, and that the court would retain authority to enforce the order and punish violations as contempt.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Somnia, Inc. v. Change Healthcare Technology Enabled Services, LLC · No. 7:19-cv-08983
Judge
Cathy Seibel
Date
July 2, 2021

Nature of the Order

This is a stipulated protective order and confidentiality agreement issued under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action.

Information Covered

A producing party may designate as “Confidential” only material it reasonably and in good faith believes includes specified categories of information, including previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; protected health information; and nonpublic, proprietary, commercial, or other legally protected information. The order also permits the court to give confidential status to other categories later.

Limits on Disclosure and Use

People subject to the order may not disclose confidential discovery material except as the order permits. Authorized recipients include the parties, insurers, counsel, certain litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and recipients, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription services, and the court. Some witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes.

Court Filings and Challenges

A party filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party challenging a confidentiality designation may give written notice stating the specific grounds for the objection; unresolved disputes are to be brought to the court under its individual practices. The court retains discretion over whether material submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding will receive confidential treatment and warned that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.

Privilege and Inadvertent Disclosure

If privileged or work-product-protected information is inadvertently disclosed, the disclosure does not waive the protection under the order. The receiving party must return or destroy the information within five business days after notification and provide counsel’s certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to compel production. The disclosing party retains the burden of proving that the information is privileged or protected.

After the Case

Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have not retained copies or summaries. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep an archival copy of specified case materials, but those copies 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

The court entered the stipulated protective order. This order addressed discovery confidentiality and enforcement procedures; the opinion text does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. The order was signed “SO ORDERED” by United States District Judge Philip M. Halpern.

The authoritative version

Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.