Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation

Nature of the Order

The court so ordered a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order in the action brought by Jean-Claude Franchitti against Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation. The order governs discovery materials that a party or non-party designates as confidential. It is an ancillary discovery order and does not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.

Protected Information

The order defines “Confidential Material” to include discovery containing sensitive non-public business, financial, personal, personnel, trade-secret, proprietary, commercial, research, or development information. It separately defines “Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material” as highly sensitive confidential or proprietary information, including trade secrets or other commercial or financial information that the producing party reasonably believes could cause competitive or commercial harm if disclosed more broadly.

A party or non-party may make a designation by marking documents, pages, electronic media, or other materials, or by identifying the material through Bates numbers or another precise method. A party may also designate material received from a non-party if it meets the order’s definitions. The order provides that inadvertent production without the required label does not waive confidentiality, subject to specified notice, replacement, return, or destruction procedures. Deposition testimony is treated as confidential for 20 business days after the official transcript is received unless the parties agree otherwise.

Use and Disclosure Restrictions

Protected material may be used only to prepare for and litigate this action, including appeals, unless the designator gives written consent or the court orders otherwise. Confidential Material may be disclosed to specified persons, including the parties, litigation counsel and certain staff, the courts handling the action, consultants and experts who sign an acknowledgment, mediators, relevant witnesses, and others who execute the required acknowledgment. The order prohibits disclosure to individuals involved in another action against the defendants without the designator’s prior written consent.

Attorney-eyes-only material may be disclosed to a narrower group and generally may not be disclosed directly to the parties or their employees. Counsel may use such material to give advice about the action, but may not reveal its contents unless permitted by written agreement or court order. Recipients must protect the material from unauthorized access, and copies and summaries remain subject to the order.

Sealing and Court Filings

When a party submits protected material in connection with a court application or motion, the order requires electronic filing with redactions or under seal, together with a motion to seal under the district’s local rules and Judge Furman’s individual rules, unless the court orders otherwise. The order expressly states that the court remains responsible for deciding whether non-public filing is justified. It does not authorize the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order.

Other Provisions

The order preserves the designator’s ability to use or disclose its own information, does not restrict the presentation of protected material at trial or hearings subject to court direction, addresses subpoenas and government demands, and provides procedures for handling inadvertently produced attorney-client privileged or attorney work-product material. It also allows modification by party agreement with court approval or by motion for good cause, and it continues after the action ends. Upon request made within 30 days after the litigation and appeals conclude, recipients must return or destroy another party’s confidential discovery materials, although counsel may retain specified archival case materials subject to continuing confidentiality obligations.

Court’s Qualification and Disposition

Judge Jesse Furman stated that the court had not reviewed the documents referenced in the stipulation and therefore made no finding that any document was confidential. Any such determination would occur through the order’s document-specific procedures and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court so ordered the stipulated protective order on November 14, 2022. The opinion contains no ruling on the parties’ underlying claims.