Catapult Group International Ltd v. Watch Fantom Inc.

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets rules for handling sensitive information exchanged during discovery, the pretrial process in which parties obtain information from one another. The parties represented that discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality.

The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case. The order does not provide blanket protection for every discovery response or disclosure.

Terms of the Order

The order permits a producing person to designate portions of discovery material as “Confidential” when public disclosure is restricted by law or could harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information concerning a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, product-development information, and personal or intimate information.

A producing person may use the stricter “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation for qualifying financial information, previously undisclosed technical information, or trade secrets. Confidential material may be disclosed to specified recipients, including the parties, counsel, litigation vendors, certain witnesses and experts who sign nondisclosure agreements, and the court. Highly confidential material generally may be disclosed only to counsel, specified litigation-support personnel, certain experts and advisers who sign nondisclosure agreements, deposition stenographers, and the court.

Recipients may use protected material only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, or competitive purposes. The order establishes procedures for objecting to a confidentiality designation and for handling material subject to a third party’s confidentiality obligations. It also addresses subpoenas, precautions against unauthorized disclosure, inadvertent disclosure of information protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection, and return or destruction of protected material after final disposition of the case.

The order states that willful violations could result in contempt of court and that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions. It also requires redacted or sealed filings to comply with the court’s Individual Rule 7.

Ruling

Judge Furman ordered the parties’ stipulated protective order. The court expressly stated that it had not reviewed the documents covered by the order and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential. Whether a document qualifies for confidential treatment must be decided, if necessary, through a document-by-document review under the court’s rules and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court did not approve any provision that would allow the parties to file documents under seal without a separate court order.