Ison v. Hotel Riu Republica

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). That rule allows a court, for good cause, to limit disclosure of information exchanged during discovery. The parties sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed in the case.

A footnote states that the defendants’ attorneys contended that Hotel Riu Republica and Riu Hotel & Resorts were not legal entities and had been improperly named. The protective order did not decide that contention or any other issue concerning the merits of the lawsuit.

The Protective Order

The order defines “Discovery Material” broadly as information of any kind produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate material as “Confidential” only when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material falls within specified categories, including:

- previously undisclosed financial information; - previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; - business plans, product-development information, or marketing plans; - nonpublic intellectual property, trade secrets, or competitively sensitive, confidential, or proprietary information; - personal or intimate information about an individual; or - another category that the court later gives confidential status.

The order sets procedures for marking confidential documents and redacting copies for public use. It also sets procedures for designating deposition testimony and exhibits, including a 30-day period after a deposition during which the entire transcript must be treated as confidential. A producing party may later designate material that was initially produced without a confidentiality designation.

Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified people, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation-support personnel, outside vendors, certain authors or recipients of documents, deposition stenographers, the court, and approved witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators. Before disclosure to certain witnesses, experts, mediators, or arbitrators, the person must receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or other protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial. Parties filing confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party seeking to maintain sealed material must provide a particularized justification, and the court retains discretion over whether material submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding will receive confidential treatment. The order warns that the court is unlikely to seal material introduced into evidence at trial.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only restriction, by written notice stating the grounds. Unresolved disputes are to be presented to the court under its individual practices.

Use, Privilege, and Enforcement

Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes. The order permits production in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory legal process, subject to notice requirements.

The order provides that producing privileged material does not waive the privilege or protection from discovery. If privileged material is produced, the producing party may require its immediate destruction, and the receiving parties must provide written confirmation within two business days.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return confidential material or destroy it with the producing party’s permission. They must certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions, although specifically retained attorneys may keep archival copies of specified case-related materials subject to the order. The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

Judge Paul G. Gardephe found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order and entered the parties’ stipulated protective order. The order addressed discovery confidentiality and related procedures; it did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or the defendants’ contention about their legal status.