Johnson v. Body & Pole, Inc.

Background

The plaintiffs are Meghan Piper Johnson, Rebecca Pardue, and Rodenellie Pluvoise, suing on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons. The defendants are Body & Pole, Inc. and Kyra Johannesen. The parties, through counsel, requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. They stipulated to the proposed terms.

Order’s Protections

The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case. The order permits a producing party to designate only portions of discovery material that it reasonably and in good faith believes include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; or another category later approved by the court.

A producing party may use the more restrictive “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation for trade secrets, competitively sensitive business information, or sensitive personal information whose disclosure is likely to harm the designating party’s business or competitive position or unnecessarily invade an individual’s privacy.

Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified people, including personnel working on the case, counsel and their staff, outside vendors, certain document-related persons, mediators or arbitrators, authors or recipients of documents, potential witnesses, experts, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Attorneys’ Eyes Only material may be disclosed to a narrower group, generally including counsel, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, experts, deposition personnel, and the court.

Additional Procedures

The order limits use of protected material to prosecuting and defending this action and related appeals. It does not waive objections to discovery, waive attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, or decide whether any document, testimony, or other evidence is admissible at trial.

A party filing protected material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The order emphasizes that a confidentiality designation does not automatically justify sealing, and the court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding. The order states that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.

Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits before trial. The order also provides procedures for inadvertently disclosed privileged or work-product-protected information, including return or destruction within five business days after notice, preparation of a privilege log, and the possibility of asking the court to compel production.

Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy protected material and certify that they have done so. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of certain case files and work product, which remain subject to the order. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Disposition

Judge Vernon S. Broderick issued the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on April 25, 2022. The opinion is a discovery-related order and does not resolve the underlying claims.