Boggs v. The Home Depot, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-06750
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Boggs v. The Home Depot, Judge Halpern approved a confidentiality order governing discovery and protecting specified nonpublic information.
The parties, their lawyers, insurers, experts, potential witnesses, vendors, mediators or arbitrators, third parties providing discovery, and other persons with notice of the order must follow its confidentiality, disclosure, use, and information-handling requirements.
What happened
In Boggs v. The Home Depot, Inc., the parties asked the court to issue an agreement governing confidential information exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause to issue a tailored order for the pretrial phase of the case.
The order permits certain financial, business, personal, and other information to be marked confidential. It limits disclosure to specified people, requires safeguards and nondisclosure agreements in some circumstances, explains how confidential materials may be filed with the court, and restricts their use to this case and related appeals.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the agreement, including requirements for handling accidentally disclosed privileged material and returning or destroying confidential information after the case ends. The order does not decide the claims or the admissibility of evidence.
The detailed version
- Boggs v. The Home Depot, Inc. · No. 7:21-cv-06750
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 3, 2023
Background
Larry Boggs and Denise Boggs sued The Home Depot, Inc., The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., The Home Depot Foundation & Homer Fund, and John/Jane Does #1-10. Through their lawyers, all parties agreed to a confidentiality agreement and asked the court to enter 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.
Order
The court found good cause for a tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case and ordered all covered persons to comply with it. The order allows a producing party to designate portions of discovery as confidential when the party reasonably and in good faith believes they include previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing information, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to listed recipients, including the parties, insurers, counsel, vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain document recipients, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential information may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
The order also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, requesting additional disclosure limits, and filing confidential material with the court. Parties must publicly file redacted versions and file unredacted versions under seal when appropriate. The court retains discretion over sealing and warned that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed. The order does not waive objections to discovery or privileges, decide whether evidence is admissible, or prevent production required by a subpoena or law, subject to notice requirements.
If privileged or work-product material is accidentally disclosed, the receiving party must generally return or destroy it within five business days after receiving notice, while the producing party must provide a privilege log. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production, and the producing party retains the burden of establishing the material's privileged or protected status. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for attorneys retained for the case. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition and Effect
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. This opinion is a discovery-related order and does not resolve the parties' underlying claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.