Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB
- Paul Davison
- 7:18-cv-09026
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Calltrol v. LoxySoft, Judge Davison approved a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and its use.
Calltrol Corporation, LoxySoft AB, LoxySoft, Inc., their lawyers and representatives, discovery providers, witnesses, experts, other authorized recipients, and anyone else subject to the order.
What happened
Calltrol Corporation sued LoxySoft AB and LoxySoft, Inc. The parties, through their lawyers, asked the Southern District of New York to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information disclosed during discovery.
The order defines what information may be marked confidential, limits who may receive it, requires nondisclosure agreements for certain recipients, and restricts use of the information to this lawsuit and related appeals. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential materials with the court, responding to subpoenas, and returning or destroying protected materials after the case ends.
The court found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered persons to follow the protective order, subject to possible contempt penalties. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison also retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose sanctions for violations.
The detailed version
- Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB · No. 7:18-cv-09026
- Paul Davison
- Feb. 1, 2023
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The request concerned nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The parties stipulated to the proposed terms, and the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Protected information
The order permits a producing party to designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes is confidential. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, and marketing plans; personal or intimate information; and trade secrets, including confidential computer source code and related materials. The court may also give confidential status to other categories later.
The order establishes procedures for marking protected material, redacting copies for public use, and designating deposition testimony and exhibits. A producing party may correct an earlier failure to designate material as confidential before trial. A party may object to a designation or request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’ eyes only treatment, and must raise an unresolved dispute with the court under the court’s individual practices.
Disclosure and use limits
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties and certain insurers, litigation counsel and their staff, vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts and advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign the attached nondisclosure agreement.
Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend Calltrol Corporation v. LoxySoft AB and LoxySoft, Inc., and any appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order does not limit a party’s rights concerning its own documents or information.
Court filings and end of the case
A party filing confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal, along with the materials required by the court’s practices. The order warns that the court may unseal material if the required particularized showing is not made and is unlikely to seal or protect material introduced at trial merely because it was previously designated confidential.
Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they kept no copies or reproductions. Litigation counsel may retain archival copies of specified case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation.
Ruling
The court ordered all persons covered by the agreement to comply with the protective order and stated that violations could lead to contempt. Magistrate Judge Paul E. Davison retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the order and impose sanctions for contempt.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.