Licensing Matters Global, Limited v. Buzzfeed, Inc.

Nature of the Order

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets rules for handling information exchanged during discovery, the pretrial process in which parties obtain information and documents from one another. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order and entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement.

Protected Information

The order covers discovery material designated either “Confidential” or “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only.” A producing party may use the “Confidential” designation for information it reasonably and in good faith believes is confidential or proprietary, not generally known, and normally not disclosed to third parties. Examples listed in the order include trade secrets, financial data, contracts, business plans, and marketing documents.

The higher-level “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” designation is available when the producing party in good faith believes disclosure creates a risk of competitive harm requiring heightened protection.

Disclosure Limits

Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified people, including the parties and certain personnel, outside counsel and their litigation staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, identified document recipients, certain witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription staff, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Material marked “Confidential – Outside Counsel Only” may generally be disclosed to a narrower group, including outside counsel and their staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, identified document recipients, certain witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription staff, and the court. The order does not allow recipients to use protected material for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.

Court Filings and Challenges

The order states that confidential material may not be filed under seal without a separate court order addressing the specific material. A party seeking sealing must submit an affidavit or affidavits and a legal memorandum addressing the applicable sealing standards, including the authority identified in the order. When confidential material is filed with the court, the parties must publicly file a redacted version and submit the unredacted version under seal.

A party may challenge a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice specifying the grounds for its objection. If the parties cannot promptly resolve the dispute, they must present it to the court under the court’s individual practices.

Privilege, Inadvertent Disclosure, and Final Disposition

The order provides that Federal Rule of Evidence 502 applies. Producing privileged or otherwise protected information during discovery does not waive the privilege or protection in this case or later state or federal proceedings. Upon request, the receiving party must promptly return the material and destroy notes based on it, subject to the rights stated in the order.

An inadvertent failure to designate information as confidential does not waive the producing party’s confidentiality claim. The producing party may later designate the material, after which recipients must treat it as protected.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they retained no copies or related reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of certain litigation materials, which remain subject to the order.

Disposition

The court ordered the parties and all other persons subject to the order to comply with its terms. The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the obligations or impose contempt sanctions. The text supplied does not describe a ruling on the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.