Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-04472
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Judge Woods, entered a protective order governing confidential discovery and privileged documents.
The parties, their counsel, officers, agents, employees, insurers, vendors, certain witnesses and experts, and other people covered by or given notice of the protective order.
What happened
In Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Inc., the parties asked the Southern District of New York to approve an agreement protecting certain information exchanged during discovery.
The order limits disclosure of information marked confidential, describes who may receive it, requires safeguards against unauthorized access, and sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations. It also protects privileged documents that are produced inadvertently from being treated as waiving the privilege.
Judge Woods ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the agreement, subject to possible contempt penalties. The order addressed discovery procedures and did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Santamaria v. Vee Technologies, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-04472
- Gregory Woods
- Dec. 18, 2022
Background
The parties jointly asked the court to enter 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. They also agreed to procedures under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d) and (e) to protect privileged or otherwise protected documents from waiver if they were produced.
Confidential information
The order allows a producing party to designate information as confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the information includes:
- Previously undisclosed financial information; - Previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; - Previously undisclosed business, product-development, or marketing plans; - Personal or intimate information about an individual; or - Another category the court later gives confidential status.
People subject to the order generally may not disclose designated confidential discovery material except to listed recipients, including the parties, certain counsel and vendors, insurers and their counsel, mediators or arbitrators, document authors or recipients, certain witnesses and experts who sign a nondisclosure agreement, deposition transcription personnel, and the court. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals.
The order requires reasonable administrative, technical, and physical safeguards for confidential material. It also requires notice, investigation, reasonable remediation, and information about the scope of a security breach if one occurs. Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies, subject to stated exceptions for archival litigation records.
Court filings and disputes
A party filing confidential discovery material must publicly file a redacted version and seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal. A confidentiality designation does not itself mean that the court will keep material sealed, particularly if the material is introduced at trial. Parties may object to designations or request additional restrictions, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment, and must bring unresolved disputes to the court under its applicable procedures.
Privilege and inadvertent production
The order provides that producing a document protected by attorney-client privilege, the work-product doctrine, or another recognized protection does not by itself waive that protection. If a receiving party identifies a potentially protected document, it must limit review, notify the producing party, identify the document, and within 10 days return, sequester, or destroy copies and related notes or summaries. If the producing party asserts protection, it must respond within 10 days and provide a privilege log consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, along with a redacted version when appropriate.
If a producing party identifies an inadvertent production, it may demand return of the material by written notice. The receiving party then must, within 10 days, return, sequester, or destroy the document and copies. The order also limits the receiving party from arguing that the production waived privilege, was not inadvertent, or resulted from inadequate preventive or corrective steps. Either party may submit the disputed material to the court under seal for a privilege determination.
Ruling and effect
The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order and ordered the parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, certain other participating people, and anyone with actual notice of the order to follow its terms. The order states that violations may result in contempt. It survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions. The order did not resolve the merits of Santamaria’s claims against Vee Technologies, Inc. or Patrick O’Malley.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.