Washington v. Mavis Discount Tire, Inc.
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-10999
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Washington v. Mavis Discount Tire, Judge Cott approved a protective order governing confidential discovery and inadvertently disclosed privileged information.
The plaintiffs, Mavis Tire Supply LLC, their attorneys and representatives, third parties providing discovery, and other people who receive or have notice of confidential discovery in this action.
What happened
Washington v. Mavis Tire Supply LLC d/b/a Mavis Discount Tire is an employment case in which the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
The order limits disclosure of information marked confidential, including certain financial, business, personal, and company-ownership information. It also explains when confidential material may be shared, requires confidentiality agreements from some recipients, and establishes procedures for filing materials under seal, challenging confidentiality designations, and handling accidentally disclosed confidential or legally protected material.
Judge James L. Cott found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the stipulated protective order. The order also requires the return or destruction of most confidential discovery after the case ends and allows the court to enforce the order and punish contempt.
The detailed version
- Washington v. Mavis Discount Tire, Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-10999
- Paul Gardephe
- June 23, 2023
Background
The plaintiffs are Justin Washington, James Carter, Tiffany Hammond, Gavin Morring, and Alcides Cortes, acting for themselves, proposed collective plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the class. The defendant is Mavis Tire Supply LLC, doing business as Mavis Discount Tire. Through their attorneys, the parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for the pretrial discovery phase.
Protective-order requirements
The order permits a producing party to designate material as confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material contains previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category later approved by the court. Confidential discovery generally may be disclosed only to specified people, including the parties, counsel, certain service providers, insurers and their counsel, the court, and designated witnesses, experts, mediators, or arbitrators who first sign a nondisclosure agreement when required.
Recipients may use confidential discovery only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or evidentiary objections. It also requires public redacted filings when confidential material is filed with the court and requires a party seeking to keep material sealed to provide a particularized justification. The court warned that it may not seal material submitted in connection with a motion or introduced at trial.
Challenges, inadvertent disclosures, and enforcement
A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment. If the parties cannot resolve the issue, they must present it to the court under the court’s individual practices. The order permits later confidentiality designations for material produced without one and provides that accidental disclosure does not automatically waive confidentiality.
The order separately addresses inadvertently disclosed privileged material, including attorney-client communications and attorney work product. After a prompt request, the receiving party generally must return or destroy the material. If the receiving party disputes the privilege claim, it may retain a single set under its control for the limited purpose of seeking a court determination, while presenting the material to the court under seal.
Ruling
The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order and ordered the parties and other covered persons to comply with it. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery and certify that they have not retained copies or summaries. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions. This order addresses discovery and confidentiality; the opinion does not resolve the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.