Federal Trade Commission v. Roomster Corp.

Background

The Federal Trade Commission and the listed state plaintiffs sued Roomster Corp., John Shriber, Roman Zaks, and Jonathan Martinez. The parties submitted a stipulated protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows courts to protect information exchanged in litigation. The order addresses information produced during discovery, the evidence-gathering phase of a case.

Protected information

The order defines “Confidential Material” as nonpublic information, including trade secrets and confidential commercial, financial, or research-and-development information, whose disclosure could cause specific harm. It separately protects defined categories of “Sensitive Personal Information,” including Social Security numbers, medical records, biometric identifiers, certain identification and financial-account information, and some contact information. It also protects the Federal Trade Commission’s “Undercover Information,” including information about undercover identities used in its investigation.

Confidentiality procedures

A party or nonparty that designates material as confidential must have a good-faith belief that the material qualifies and that good cause exists to overcome the usual presumption of public access to discovery materials. The designating entity must mark only the portions containing protected information; mass or indiscriminate designations are prohibited.

A receiving party may challenge a confidentiality designation in writing. The parties must meet and confer within seven days after the objection. If they cannot resolve the dispute, the designating entity must ask the court to uphold the designation within ten days after that meeting. The designating entity bears the burden of showing that the designation is proper.

Permitted uses and disclosures

Protected information may be disclosed to the court, court personnel, counsel and designated employees, litigation experts and consultants who agree to confidentiality terms, certain persons who previously had access to the information, potential witnesses who sign the required acknowledgment, and others when required by law or authorized by the court. The Federal Trade Commission and the state plaintiffs may also disclose protected information to governmental entities as authorized or required by applicable law, subject to steps protecting confidentiality.

Filing and handling after the case

A party seeking to file confidential material publicly must redact it or file it under seal while asking the court to authorize sealing, unless the designating entity agrees to public filing or the court permits it. Sensitive Personal Information may not be publicly disclosed without prior court approval, subject to the order’s provisions concerning relevant and necessary information.

The Federal Trade Commission may redact Undercover Information from filings, exhibits, and discovery responses. No party may obtain that information from the Commission unless the court finds good cause for disclosure.

Within 60 days after final resolution of all claims, most recipients must return or destroy Confidential Material and Sensitive Personal Information. The order permits specified retention by designating entities, the Federal Trade Commission, other law-enforcement agencies, the state plaintiffs, and congressional committees under the conditions described in the order. The protective order continues after the case concludes unless the court enters a different order.

Court’s clarification and disposition

Judge McMahon entered the parties’ stipulated protective order. The addendum states that the court’s approval did not make the court a party to the stipulation or establish that materials labeled confidential are actually confidential. The court emphasized that the entire record is presumed publicly available and said it ordinarily does not seal decisions or redact them. If a decision refers to material designated confidential, the parties will have ten days to identify proposed redactions and explain why the material deserves protection; the court will make the final determination.

The opinion does not decide the underlying claims against the defendants. It enters a procedural protective order governing discovery and court filings. The document text appears to contain a date inconsistency: the provided filing information states May 18, 2023, while the order’s partly unclear date line refers to 2025.