Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-06653
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In BRINKS Global Services v. Arat Jewelry, Judge Gardephe approved a protective order governing confidential discovery and privileged material.
The order affects BRINKS GLOBAL SERVICES USA, INC., ARAT JEWELRY CORP. and the other defendants, their representatives, agents, experts, consultants, third parties providing discovery, and other persons with actual or constructive notice of the order.
What happened
In BRINKS GLOBAL SERVICES USA, INC. v. ARAT JEWELRY CORP. et al., the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The court issued a protective order limiting disclosure of information labeled “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential.” It also established procedures for challenging confidentiality labels, filing protected materials under seal, handling accidentally produced privileged documents, responding to subpoenas, and destroying protected materials after the case ends.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe found good cause for the order and entered it on February 21, 2023. The order applies to the parties and other persons subject to it, and the court retained authority to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Brink's Global Services USA, Inc. v. Bonita Pearl, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-06653
- Paul Gardephe
- Feb. 21, 2023
Background
The parties, through counsel, 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 court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Protective-order terms
The order creates two levels of protection. “Confidential” material may include previously undisclosed management, security, ownership, financial, business-plan, human-resources, training, marketing, personal, or similar information. “Highly Confidential” material may include information whose disclosure is restricted by law or could harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests, including trade secrets and previously undisclosed technical information.
People subject to the order may disclose protected material only to specified categories of recipients. These include the parties, counsel, certain vendors, mediators, arbitrators, document authors or sources, witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Several recipients must first receive a copy of the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Protected material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, except that the order allows its use in a specified California state-court action under the order’s terms.
The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or other protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial. It establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and requesting additional disclosure limits. Parties filing protected material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal, while recognizing that the court may decline to seal material and is unlikely to keep such material sealed if introduced at trial.
The order also addresses accidentally produced privileged material. If the producing party gives notice, the receiving party must return, destroy, or delete the identified material on request, generally may not review or use it, and may not disclose its contents to people who were not already aware of them. The order states that such disclosure does not waive privilege in another federal or state proceeding under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d). Within 30 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, protected discovery material and copies must be destroyed, with written certification sent to the producing party.
Ruling
The court entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order applies to the parties and other listed persons, remains effective after the litigation ends for enforcement purposes, and allows the court to impose contempt sanctions for violations. Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order on February 21, 2023.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.