Treanor v. Apple Inc.
- Kenneth Karas
- 7:22-cv-07108
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 15
In Treanor v. Apple, Judge Krause entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
William Treanor as parent and natural guardian of infant FN; Apple Inc.; Costco Wholesale Corporation; their counsel, representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, and other people who receive protected discovery material; and the court personnel responsible for enforcing the order.
What happened
William Treanor, acting as parent and natural guardian of infant FN, sued Apple Inc. and Costco Wholesale Corporation. The parties agreed that discovery could involve confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, and commercially sensitive information.
The order limits protected information to use in this case or a related appeal. It creates two protection levels—“CONFIDENTIAL” and “CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY”—and restricts who may receive each type, how materials may be stored and filed, and how parties may challenge confidentiality designations.
Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered the stipulated protective order on January 9, 2023. The order also requires return or destruction of protected materials after the case ends and preserves the court’s authority to interpret and enforce the order.
The detailed version
- Treanor v. Apple Inc. · No. 7:22-cv-07108
- Kenneth Karas
- Jan. 10, 2023
Background
The parties anticipated that discovery would involve documents, testimony, and other information containing confidential, proprietary, trade-secret, or commercially sensitive material. They jointly asked the court to establish rules for designating, accessing, using, challenging, filing, and disposing of that material.
Protective-order terms
The order defines “Discovery Material” broadly to include information produced, disclosed, or generated in connection with discovery, including testimony, transcripts, and tangible things. Protected Material may be designated either “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” Protected Material may be used only for this case or a related appeal, not for another lawsuit, business or competitive purpose, or public or media communication.
“CONFIDENTIAL” material may include trade secrets, confidential research or development information, commercially sensitive information, and nonpublic information about the defendants’ products or internal procedures. The order permits disclosure to specified people, including counsel, certain party representatives, qualified experts and consultants, court personnel, mediators, witnesses who sign the required acknowledgment, and others who receive the producing party’s written consent. Most permitted recipients must first agree in writing to follow the order.
“CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” material is reserved for extremely sensitive information whose disclosure could cause economic harm or significant competitive disadvantage. Examples listed in the order include nonpublic business, financial, sales, marketing, product-development, engineering, testing, and employee information. Access is generally limited to qualifying counsel, experts or consultants retained by counsel, specified litigation personnel, the court, mediators, and other persons approved in writing by the producing party.
The order requires secure storage and generally prohibits exporting protected material outside the United States or allowing access by foreign nationals. It establishes procedures for marking documents and electronic files, designating deposition testimony, challenging designations, responding to subpoenas, and filing protected material under seal. A challenge does not remove the designation unless the producing party withdraws it or the court rules that the designation is improper.
The order also addresses inadvertent production of privileged material, inadvertent failures to designate material, unauthorized disclosure, and the return or destruction of discovery material after final disposition of the case. The confidentiality obligations continue after the case ends unless the producing party agrees otherwise in writing or a court directs otherwise.
Ruling
Magistrate Judge Andrew E. Krause ordered the stipulated protective order. The court stated that its revisions included language in paragraphs 17(b) and 17(f), concerning continuing obligations and the court’s enforcement authority. The order further states that the individual practices of Judge Karas and Magistrate Judge Krause control if they conflict with the order, particularly regarding applications and sealed filings, and that the court retains discretion over whether documents may be filed or remain under seal.
Read the full 15-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.