Gannon v. Yan Ping Association, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-01675
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
Gannon v. Yan Ping Association: Judge Cott approved a protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting with them, and others who receive or have actual notice of confidential discovery materials are bound by the order. It primarily affects how discovery may be designated, shared, used, filed, and retained.
What happened
In Gannon v. Yan Ping Association, Inc., the parties asked the Southern District of New York to approve an agreement protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information disclosed during discovery.
The order limits who may receive information labeled confidential and generally permits its use only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. It also sets procedures for labeling information, challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential material with the court, and returning or destroying the material after the case ends.
Magistrate Judge James L. Cott found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the protective order. The order addressed discovery confidentiality and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Gannon v. Yan Ping Association, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-01675
- Gregory Woods
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
The parties, through their attorneys, 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 in the action against Yan Ping Association, Inc., Awesome Awesome Inc., and John Doe 1-X. Judge Cott found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order covering the pretrial phase.
Order
The court ordered the parties and specified other people—including their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting with them, and people who have actual notice of the order—to comply with its terms, subject to possible contempt penalties.
The order permits a producing party to designate only portions of discovery materials that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain certain previously undisclosed information, including 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 given confidential status by the court. It establishes procedures for marking documents, deposition testimony, and exhibits as confidential, including a 30-day period after a deposition during which the entire transcript must be treated as confidential.
Confidential discovery materials may be disclosed only to listed categories of people, such as the parties, counsel, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, appropriate witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Materials may be used only for prosecuting or defending this action and related appeals, not for other litigation or purposes.
The order also allows parties to object to confidentiality designations or request additional limits on disclosure. It requires public redacted filings when confidential discovery materials are submitted to the court, while unredacted versions may be filed under seal only with a particularized request and supporting explanation. The court stated that it had not made a final finding that any designated material was confidential and might not keep such material sealed if introduced at trial.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Cott ordered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery materials and certify that they retained no copies, although counsel may keep specified archival case files subject to the order. The obligations continue after the litigation ends, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions. This was a discovery-related order; the opinion did not resolve 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.