Roeder v. Collection Bureau Of The Hudson Valley, Inc.
- Judith McCarthy
- 7:20-cv-06200
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Roeder v. Collection Bureau, Judge McCarthy approved a protective order governing Experian’s confidential discovery materials and their use in the litigation.
Adam Roeder, Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., non-party Experian Information Solutions, Inc., and the attorneys, witnesses, experts, vendors, and others who receive materials covered by the protective order.
What happened
Adam Roeder sued Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc., and the parties and non-party Experian Information Solutions, Inc. agreed to a protective order covering confidential information produced by Experian in the case. The order replaced the earlier protective order as it applied to Experian’s responses to subpoenas.
The order allows Experian to label information “Confidential” or, when disclosure could cause substantial identifiable harm, “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” The materials may generally be used only to prepare for and try this case, and disclosure is limited to specified people such as the court, attorneys, certain witnesses, and litigation experts. People receiving the most restricted materials must sign a compliance declaration, and confidential filings must be submitted under seal with public versions that remove the confidential information when appropriate.
Judge Judith McCarthy ordered the stipulated protective order on March 29, 2022. The order also provides procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, requires covered materials to be returned to Experian within 60 days after the case finally ends, and states that confidentiality designations do not constitute evidence on the case’s merits.
The detailed version
- Roeder v. Collection Bureau Of The Hudson Valley, Inc. · No. 7:20-cv-06200
- Judith McCarthy
- Mar. 29, 2022
Background
Plaintiff Adam Roeder brought this action against Collection Bureau of the Hudson Valley, Inc. The parties and non-party Experian Information Solutions, Inc. stipulated to a protective order concerning documents, testimony, and other information that Experian produced or may produce in response to subpoenas or otherwise during discovery. The order states that it supersedes the protective order previously entered in the case, ECF No. 16, as it applies to Experian’s subpoena responses.
Confidentiality Designations
Experian may designate materials as “Confidential” by marking the documents or the portions requiring protection. If Experian believes in good faith that disclosure of particular materials to all parties or non-parties would create a substantial risk of identifiable harm, it may designate them “Confidential—Attorneys’ Eyes Only.”
Materials covered by the order, and information derived from them, may be used only for preparing for and trying this action. The order prohibits business, commercial, competitive, or other unrelated use.
Who May Receive the Materials
Confidential materials may be disclosed, subject to the order, to the court and its officers, the parties, counsel and their assisting employees, certain fact witnesses, present or former Experian employees in connection with depositions, and experts retained for this litigation.
Attorneys’-eyes-only materials have narrower disclosure limits. They may generally be shared only with a party’s retained outside counsel and necessary employees, litigation experts, the court and its personnel, court reporters and necessary professional vendors, and the document’s author or the original information source. Certain recipients must first read the order, agree to follow it, and sign the attached Declaration of Compliance.
Court Filings and Enforcement
Papers filed with the court that include protected information must be designated appropriately and filed under seal, with a version deleting the confidential information potentially placed on the public docket. The order does not prevent a party from using protected information at trial.
If a party disputes a confidentiality designation, the parties must first attempt to resolve the dispute informally and in good faith. If they cannot resolve it, the objecting party may seek relief from the court; while the challenge is pending, the designation remains in effect. Within 60 days after final termination of the litigation, covered materials must be returned to Experian, excluding qualifying attorney work product. The court retained authority to permit disclosure or modify the order in the interest of justice.
Ruling
Judge Judith McCarthy ordered the stipulated protective order on March 29, 2022. The order states that its entry, the designation or nondesignation of information, and the parties’ compliance with it do not constitute evidence concerning any issue in the action.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.