ASTRAEA NY LLC v. Rivada Networks, Inc.

Background

Astraea NY LLC and Rivada Networks, Inc., through their respective lawyers, submitted a stipulated confidentiality agreement to protect sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery and other proceedings in the case. The agreement covers documents, deposition testimony, affidavits, interrogatory answers, and other information produced, filed, or served by a party or non-party.

Terms of the Order

The order allows parties and other persons providing materials to designate them as either “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” A Confidential designation applies when the designating party or person in good faith believes the material contains confidential or proprietary information, or information properly covered by a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). Attorneys’ Eyes Only is reserved for highly sensitive information whose disclosure to another party or non-party would create a substantial risk of serious harm that less restrictive measures could not avoid.

Protected materials may generally be used only to prepare for and conduct this case. The order identifies permitted recipients. Confidential material may be shared, when reasonably necessary for the case, with counsel and staff, the parties and certain personnel or advisers, experts and consultants, deposition or trial witnesses, the Court, court reporters, and others with the designating party’s consent or the Court’s order. Attorneys’ Eyes Only material may be shared with outside counsel and staff, experts and consultants, the Court, court reporters, and other authorized recipients, but not with the parties generally under the listed provisions.

The order also provides procedures for designating deposition testimony, making later designations, protecting inadvertently produced privileged material, challenging confidentiality designations, and seeking permission to file protected material under seal. Protected material may be offered in open court unless the producing party obtains an appropriate protective order, and parties must make reasonable efforts to limit disclosure. After final resolution of the case and appeals, the producing party may require the materials to be returned or destroyed, with written certification of destruction if requested. The agreement’s obligations continue after the case ends.

Ruling

Judge Louis L. Stanton ordered the stipulated confidentiality agreement on February 28, 2023. The order states that materials submitted to the Court for its information or judicial decision are not automatically protected from public disclosure and must satisfy applicable sealing standards. The order addresses discovery and confidentiality only; the opinion does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.