Daol Rexmark Union Station LLC v. Union Station Sole Member, LLC
- Gregory Woods
- 1:22-cv-06649
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Daol Rexmark v. Union Station Sole Member, Judge Woods approved the parties’ protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, specified witnesses and experts, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, court personnel, and anyone else with actual notice of the protective order who receives or handles designated confidential discovery material.
What happened
In Daol Rexmark Union Station LLC v. Union Station Sole Member, LLC, the parties asked the Southern District of New York to issue a protective order for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The order explains how parties may mark discovery materials confidential, limits disclosure to specified people, requires confidentiality agreements for certain recipients, and restricts use of the information to this case and related appeals. It also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and seeking additional limits on disclosure.
Judge Gregory H. Woods found good cause and ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to follow its terms. The order does not itself decide that any designated material is confidential, and the court retains authority over enforcement and possible contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Daol Rexmark Union Station LLC v. Union Station Sole Member, LLC · No. 1:22-cv-06649
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 9, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs and defendant jointly requested 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. The parties agreed to the order’s terms, and the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Main Terms
A producing party may designate discovery material as “Confidential” if it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business plans or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
The order establishes procedures for marking documents, deposition exhibits, and deposition testimony as confidential. A producing party may also correct an earlier failure to designate material by giving written notice and providing replacement versions within two business days.
Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties, insurers, counsel, litigation vendors, certain witnesses, experts, mediators or arbitrators, authors or recipients identified on a document, court personnel, and deposition stenographers. Certain witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. They must take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of specified case-related materials, which remain subject to the order.
The order also provides procedures for filing confidential material with the court, including publicly filing a redacted version and seeking permission to file an unredacted version under seal. A party objecting to a confidentiality designation may give written notice stating the grounds for the objection. The parties may also request additional disclosure limits, such as an “attorneys’ eyes only” restriction, in extraordinary circumstances.
What the Court Decided
Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to comply with its terms. The court did not make a finding that any particular discovery material was actually confidential and retained discretion to decide whether to give confidential treatment to designated material. The court also warned that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed without the required particularized findings. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.