Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:22-cv-10861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Judge Gardephe entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The order binds the parties and their corporate parents, successors, and assigns; their representatives, agents, experts, and consultants; third parties providing discovery; and other people with actual or constructive notice of the order. It also regulates counsel, witnesses, mediators, arbitrators, vendors, and others who receive confidential discovery material.
What happened
Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc. is a case in which the parties agreed that certain nonpublic and competitively sensitive information might be exchanged during discovery.
The court’s order allows parties to label limited categories of information confidential, including previously undisclosed financial information, business plans, marketing plans, ownership information, and personal information. It restricts disclosure to specified people, requires nondisclosure agreements for some recipients, and limits use of the information to this case and related appeals.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe found good cause for the order and entered it on June 6, 2023. The order also explains procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential materials under seal, returning or destroying materials after the case ends, and enforcing the order.
The detailed version
- Johnson v. Esports Entertainment Group, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10861
- Katharine Parker
- June 6, 2023
Background
The parties jointly requested a confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They said the order was needed to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Order
The court entered the stipulated protective order. It covers discovery material designated confidential by a producing party or person. A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes specified types of information, such as previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or product-development plans, marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category the court later approves.
Confidential material generally may be disclosed only to listed recipients, including the parties, certain insurers and counsel, attorneys and their litigation support staff, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and recipients, certain witnesses, experts and other specialized advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Before receiving confidential material, certain witnesses, experts, advisers, mediators, and arbitrators must receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The order limits use of confidential material to prosecuting and defending this case and related appeals. It does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or other protections, and it does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. A party may challenge a confidentiality designation or request additional disclosure limits by written notice; unresolved disputes are to be presented to the court under its individual practices.
Sealing and Court Filings
A party filing documents under seal must simultaneously submit a letter brief and supporting declaration explaining specifically why continued sealing is justified. When confidential material is filed with the court, the parties must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The court retains discretion over whether to maintain confidential treatment and states that it is unlikely to seal material introduced into evidence at trial.
Duration and Enforcement
Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they retained no copies or reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep certain archival materials, which remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order, which was dated June 6, 2023. The opinion does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.