Bruderman Asset Management, LLC v. Real Time Consultants, Inc.

Background

The opinion text consists primarily of an April 5, 2022 letter from Real Time Consultants, Inc. to Judge Vernon S. Broderick, along with the court’s directive to Bruderman Asset Management, LLC. The letter concerns an ongoing disagreement about a proposed protective order, which is an order governing the treatment and use of information exchanged in litigation.

Real Time stated that the parties had been unable to agree on a joint letter describing their dispute. It asserted that Bruderman’s proposed protective order was too broad and unclear because it would allow documents to be labeled confidential based on a general assertion that confidentiality was needed to protect privacy interests. Real Time also objected to unrestricted “attorneys’ eyes only” and “attorneys’ and experts’ eyes only” designations. According to Real Time, Bruderman later agreed to remove the attorneys’-eyes-only provisions but still did not identify specific categories of documents requiring protection.

Disputed confidentiality terms

Real Time said it was willing to allow confidential treatment for information required to remain confidential by law, regulation, or common law, including Bruderman’s nonpublic financial information, the contents of certain settlement agreements, and personally identifiable information concerning Bruderman’s former client, Kyrie Irving. Real Time said it would not agree to treating Irving’s name alone, or the fact that he was Bruderman’s former client, as confidential.

Real Time argued that Bruderman had not shown “good cause,” meaning a clearly defined, specific, and serious injury that disclosure would cause. Real Time characterized Bruderman’s asserted interest as avoiding negative publicity or embarrassment related to transfers from Irving’s account to a Hong Kong bank account. These descriptions and allegations were presented by Real Time in its letter; the text provided does not contain a ruling by the court adopting them as facts.

A second dispute concerned whether documents designated confidential in this case could be used in a later action arising from the complaint’s allegations, such as a possible subrogation action by an insurer. Real Time asked to use those documents in the later action without issuing new document requests or subpoenas, while maintaining their confidential designations.

Court action and disposition

Judge Broderick directed Bruderman, by April 11, 2022, to submit a letter stating its position on the dispute. The provided text does not state that the court granted or denied either party’s proposed protective-order terms, ruled on confidentiality of Irving’s identity, or decided whether documents could be used in a later action. The court’s action was therefore a procedural directive concerning a protective-order dispute, not a merits decision on the underlying lawsuit.