Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:20-cv-10373
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Judge Woods approved a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their use in the lawsuit.
The parties, their attorneys, covered representatives, and other people who receive or have notice of confidential discovery material in this action.
What happened
In Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc., the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information they might exchange during discovery. The parties agreed through their lawyers to the proposed terms.
The order permits parties to mark certain discovery materials as confidential, including specified financial, business, ownership, marketing, and personal information. It limits disclosure to listed recipients, such as the parties, lawyers, certain witnesses, experts, and the court, and generally restricts use of the information to this lawsuit and related appeals.
The court found good cause for the order and directed the parties and other covered people to follow it. Judge Gregory H. Woods also stated that the court had not decided whether any material was actually confidential and would retain authority to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-10373
- Katharine Parker
- June 22, 2022
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The order identifies the parties as Faustino Pujols, RTS Solutionz, Inc., also identified as Solutionz, Inc. and as successor to Real Time Services, Inc., Bill Warnick, and Kirk R. Fernandez.
Order
The court issued the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order after finding good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case. The order applies to the parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting with them, and others who have actual notice of the order.
Confidential information and disclosure
A producing party or person may designate discovery material as confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material contains specified categories of information. Those categories include previously undisclosed financial information, such as contract pricing, invoice charges, labor pricing, wages paid to employees other than Faustino Pujols, profitability information, fees, sales reports, and margins; previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; and other categories later given confidential status by the court.
The order does not include information reflecting wages actually paid to Faustino Pujols within the listed financial-information category. Confidential portions generally must be marked, and the producing party must provide a redacted copy for future public use. Deposition transcripts and exhibits may be designated under separate procedures, and the entire deposition transcript is treated as confidential during the 30-day period after a deposition.
Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation-support staff, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified on a document, potential witnesses, experts or other specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Court filings and challenges
The order requires public filing of redacted copies when confidential material is included in court submissions. An unredacted copy may be filed under seal only with an application and supporting declaration that specifically justify sealing. The order states that the court may unseal documents if it cannot make the required specific findings that closure is essential and narrowly tailored.
A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request additional disclosure limits. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, counsel must bring it to the court under the applicable court practices. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or protection, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.
Use, return, and enforcement
Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for another litigation or purpose. The order also addresses disclosure required by subpoena or law, precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and the return or destruction of confidential material within 60 days after the litigation ends, subject to an archival-copy exception for attorneys specifically retained in the action.
The confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends. Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered that the court retain jurisdiction over people subject to the order as necessary to enforce its obligations or impose sanctions for contempt. The opinion does not decide the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.