Mt. Hawley Insurance Company v. Spring Mountain Vineyard, Inc.

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought rules protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for issuing a tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the action.

Terms of the Order

The order prohibits people subject to it from disclosing discovery material designated as “Confidential,” except as the order allows. A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes certain previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category that the court later gives confidential status.

The order establishes procedures for marking documents, redacting copies for public use, and designating deposition testimony and exhibits. A party may also later designate previously produced material as confidential by written notice and must provide replacement versions within two business days.

Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation-support personnel, outside service providers, certain document recipients, potential witnesses, experts, mediators or arbitrators, deposition stenographers, and the court. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators generally must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals.

Challenges, Court Filings, and Enforcement

The order preserves objections to discovery, privileges, protections, and evidentiary admissibility. A party may challenge a confidentiality designation before trial; unresolved disputes are to be brought to the court under the court’s individual practices.

For court filings containing confidential discovery material, the parties must publicly file a redacted version and seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal. Any sealing request must be supported with a particularized justification. The order notes that the court may unseal documents if it cannot make the required specific findings that sealing is essential and narrowly tailored.

The order also addresses subpoenas and other compulsory legal process, requires recipients to take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure, and states that the obligations continue after the litigation ends. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions.

Disposition

The court issued the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order does not make a finding that any particular discovery material is confidential; instead, it preserves the court’s discretion to decide whether material should receive confidential treatment. Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order on August 8, 2022.