IN RE TUFIN SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. SECURITIES LITIGATION

Background

Lead Plaintiff Mark Henry and Named Plaintiffs Matt Primozich and William J. Allen, together with Tufin Software Technologies Ltd. and the Individual Defendants—Reuven Kitov, Jack Wakileh, Reuven Harrison, Ohad Finkelstein, Edouard Cukierman, Yair Shamir, Ronni Zehavi, and Yuval Shachar—asked the court to enter their stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. Discovery is the pretrial process through which parties exchange information and evidence.

Order

The court issued the protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits a court to protect discovery materials for good cause. The order allows a producing party to label materials “Confidential” when it reasonably and in good faith believes they contain categories such as previously undisclosed financial information, private-company ownership information, business or marketing plans, personal data, or other information given confidential status by the court.

The plaintiffs may label as “Highly Confidential” materials that they reasonably and in good faith believe identify confidential witnesses referenced in the Second Amended Complaint. The order explains that this designation does not establish that a confidential witness’s identity deserves highly confidential treatment for the entire case, and it preserves the parties’ right to challenge the designation.

People covered by the order may disclose confidential materials only to specified recipients, including the parties, counsel, litigation vendors, certain witnesses, experts, mediators or arbitrators, document authors or addressees, deposition stenographers, and the court. In many circumstances, the recipient must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Highly confidential materials designated by the plaintiffs have additional disclosure limits. The permitted recipients include the Individual Defendants who sign nondisclosure agreements, confidential witnesses, litigation counsel and staff, certain defense-related recipients, current or former Tufin employees or officers needed to assist with the litigation, vendors, experts, mediators or arbitrators, document authors or addressees, stenographers, and the court.

The order requires public redacted filings and sealed unredacted filings when protected discovery material is submitted to the court. It also requires a particularized justification for sealing and states that the court may unseal documents if the required findings are not made. Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits, such as attorney-eyes-only treatment, by giving written notice and presenting unresolved disputes to the court.

Protected materials may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for another purpose or litigation. Recipients must protect personal data, report certain data incidents, and provide notice before disclosure required by a subpoena or other compulsory process when the order permits advance notice. Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the protected materials and certify that they retained no copies, subject to an archival-copy exception for litigation counsel. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling and effect

Judge Gregory H. Woods found good cause and ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to comply with its terms. The order governs the handling and disclosure of discovery materials and does not determine whether any material is ultimately admissible at trial or decide the merits of the securities-litigation claims.