Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc.
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-07380
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc., Judge Castel entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential information exchanged in the lawsuit.
Sony Music Entertainment, Triller, nonparties producing information in the litigation, and the attorneys, employees, experts, consultants, vendors, court reporters, and other authorized people who may receive protected information.
What happened
Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc. is a case in which the parties agreed to rules for handling sensitive information exchanged during the lawsuit. The court entered their stipulated protective order under the federal rule allowing courts to protect information from improper disclosure.
The order creates two levels of protection: “CONFIDENTIAL” and “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” It limits use of protected information to preparing for, conducting, and appealing this case, identifies people who may receive it, establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and sets rules for court filings, inadvertent disclosures, and returning or destroying information after the case.
The court entered the stipulated protective order on March 3, 2023. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the order, which governs Sony Music, Triller, and certain nonparties and other authorized recipients; it does not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Sony Music Entertainment v. Triller, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-07380
- P. Castel
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Sony Music Entertainment, et al. (“Sony Music”) and Triller, Inc. stipulated to a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The order governs information produced by parties and nonparties in the litigation, including information produced voluntarily, in response to a subpoena, or under a court order.
Protection Levels and Permitted Use
The order defines “Protected Information” as information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL.” A producing person may designate information as CONFIDENTIAL when it in good faith believes the information is nonpublic, sensitive, or confidential. Examples include confidential technical, customer, sales, marketing, financial, and other commercially sensitive information.
The HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY designation is reserved for particularly sensitive information that the producing person believes cannot be disclosed without a substantial risk of harm. Examples include proprietary marketing, financial, sales, research and development, and technical information; business plans; competitive analyses; antipiracy and enforcement efforts; artist agreements; personnel files; legally protected personal information; settlement materials; and personally identifiable customer or subscriber information. Information already in the public domain is not Protected Information.
Protected Information may be used only to prepare for, conduct, and appeal this litigation. The order generally limits disclosure to specified “Qualified Persons,” including outside litigation counsel and their support personnel, in-house counsel actively working on the case, independent experts and consultants subject to stated conditions, the Court and its staff, certain litigation vendors and court reporters, and people who authored or previously received the information and agree to keep it confidential. Certain officers, directors, and employees actively involved in the case may also receive CONFIDENTIAL information.
Designations and Disputes
The order explains how documents and electronically stored information must be marked. Deposition, hearing, and trial information may be designated on the record or within 30 days after receipt of the final transcript. Deposition transcripts are treated as HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL for 30 days after initial receipt. Nonparty productions are presumptively HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL for five days, subject to the order’s additional notice and designation periods.
A party does not have to challenge a designation immediately. The parties must first try to resolve disputes informally. If they cannot, the objecting party may object in writing, after which the designating party has 21 days to ask the Court to preserve the designation. The order separately establishes deadlines and procedures for objections concerning experts, consultants, and requests to disclose information to people who are not Qualified Persons.
Court Filings, Return of Information, and Enforcement
A party wishing to use Protected Information in a filing must first ask the producing party whether it will remove the designation. The order states that no document may be filed under seal without a further court order addressing the specific material. It also requires sealing applications to address the standards for sealing and specified controlling authority.
Within 120 days after the litigation and related appeals conclude, Protected Information generally must be returned or destroyed, subject to stated exceptions for work product, court filings, information used as evidence, and other materials identified in the order. The confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends, and the Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order. The order also addresses inadvertent production of privileged or protected material, including return or destruction upon request and restrictions on use.
Ruling and Effect
The Court ordered the stipulated protective order. This was an ancillary case-management ruling governing confidential information; the order did not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. Judge P. Kevin Castel signed the order on March 3, 2023.
Note on the Text
The attachment’s acknowledgment form refers to an order entered in January 2023, while the operative order states that it was ordered on March 3, 2023. The opinion text does not explain that discrepancy.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.