Loancare LLC v. Dimont & Associates, LLC

Order

The court approved the parties’ confidentiality stipulation and entered a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The order governs information and documents exchanged during the pretrial phase of the action involving Loancare LLC, Dimont & Associates, LLC, and Investor Claim Solutions, LLC.

Confidentiality Designations

Counsel may designate documents or information as confidential when counsel determines in good faith that the designation is needed to protect proprietary information, trade secrets, or other sensitive nonpublic information. Designated materials are to be marked “CONFIDENTIAL.” The receiving person may use confidential information only in connection with this action.

A party challenging a confidentiality designation must first make a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute with opposing counsel. If the dispute is not resolved, the challenging party may seek a ruling from the court. The order does not establish that confidential information is relevant or admissible, and each party retains the right to object to its use or admissibility.

The parties are to meet and confer if a production requires an “Attorneys’ or Experts’ Eyes Only” designation. Other confidential materials may be disclosed only to specified people, including the requesting party and counsel, necessary litigation employees, consultants or experts assisting with the case, and the court, including a mediator or another person who has access because of a court-related position. Before disclosure to other permitted recipients, counsel generally must explain the information’s confidential nature, explain the limits imposed by the order, and obtain a signed agreement to follow the order.

Personal Information and Privilege

The order requires personal identifying information exchanged in discovery—such as Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passwords, and information that could be used for identity theft—to be stored and shared securely. If the receiving party experiences a data breach, it must immediately notify the producing party and cooperate in addressing and remedying the breach. The order preserves the producing party’s potential legal claims and defenses concerning inadequate protection of personal identifying information.

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 502, inadvertent or other production of attorney-client privileged or work-product-protected materials does not waive those protections in this case or another federal or state proceeding. The order is intended to provide the maximum protection permitted by Rule 502(d).

Sealing and End of Litigation

Confidential designation alone does not create a presumption that materials may be filed under seal. The parties must follow the court’s procedures for seeking permission to file materials under seal. At the end of the litigation, confidential information and copies generally must be returned to the producing party or certified as destroyed within 30 days after entry of a final judgment that is no longer subject to further appeal, although counsel may keep protected working files. Disclosure remains permitted when required by law or a valid subpoena.

Court’s Limitation on the Order

The court stated that it had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that they were confidential. Any such determination would occur, if necessary, through document-by-document review under the court’s procedures and subject to the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court also stated that it did not approve any provision purporting to authorize filing documents under seal without a prior court order.

Disposition

The court entered the confidentiality and protective order as stipulated, subject to the stated limitation that it made no determination that any document is confidential and did not authorize sealing without a separate court order.