Lamparelli v. Manzello

Background

Giacomo Lamparelli, James Manzello, and Matthew Pavich, through their attorneys, stipulated to a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve nonpublic and confidential documents or information whose disclosure could cause harm to the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality.

Protective-order terms

The order permits a party or third party to designate discovery as “Confidential” if it contains trade secrets; competitively sensitive technical, marketing, financial, sales, or other business information; private or confidential personal information; information received from a third party in confidence; or information the producing party in good faith believes is entitled to protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G). Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and may be disclosed only to specified people, including counsel, qualified experts and consultants who sign a nondisclosure agreement, court personnel, certain deponents, litigation-support vendors, and the parties.

Material containing highly sensitive business or personal information that is highly likely to cause significant harm may be designated “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” That material may be disclosed only to the receiving party’s outside counsel and to other people approved in advance by the producing party or third party, or authorized by the court. Counsel may advise a client about the case based on Attorneys’ Eyes Only material, but may not reveal the material’s contents without authorization.

The order also sets a process for challenging a confidentiality designation. The objecting party must provide a written objection, and the designating party generally has 14 days to respond. The parties must then try in good faith to resolve the dispute. If they cannot, the party supporting the designation must present the dispute to the court under the applicable local and individual rules before filing a formal motion.

The order addresses deposition transcripts, inadvertent disclosure of confidential information, mistaken disclosure of material protected by privilege or attorney work-product protection, information already public or properly obtained from another source, objections to discovery, modification of the order, and the handling of confidential material after the case ends. It remains effective unless changed by a court order or a written stipulation filed with the court.

Sealing and the court’s ruling

The court expressly stated that it had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential. Any such finding would occur, if necessary, through document-by-document review under the court’s rules and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court did not authorize the parties to file confidential information under seal without a prior court order. Documents designated as confidential that are filed with the court require leave of court under the applicable rules.

Judge Furman ordered the stipulated protective order and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 38. The order governs discovery confidentiality; it does not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the case.