Jefferies Leveraged Credit Products, LLC v. Invictus Global Management, LLC
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-00114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
Jefferies v. Invictus: Judge Rearden issued a protective order governing confidential discovery and limiting how the information could be shared and used.
Jefferies Leveraged Credit Products, LLC, Invictus Global Management, LLC, their representatives, agents, experts, consultants, counsel, specified service providers and witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and other persons with actual or constructive notice of the protective order.
What happened
Jefferies Leveraged Credit Products, LLC v. Invictus Global Management, LLC involved the parties’ request for a protective order for confidential information exchanged during discovery, the pretrial exchange of case information. The parties agreed to the order’s terms, and the court found good cause to protect information whose public disclosure could cause harm.
The order allows certain financial, ownership, business, personal, and other court-designated information to be marked confidential. People who receive that information generally may use it only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals, and disclosure is limited to specified people such as the parties, case counsel, experts, certain witnesses, service providers, and the court. The order also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling accidentally disclosed privileged information, filing confidential material, and returning or destroying protected material after the case ends.
In Jefferies Leveraged Credit Products, LLC v. Invictus Global Management, LLC, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden ordered the stipulated protective order on October 17, 2023. The order states that confidential treatment is not automatic for every disclosure and does not guarantee that material will be filed under seal.
The detailed version
- Jefferies Leveraged Credit Products, LLC v. Invictus Global Management, LLC · No. 1:23-cv-00114
- Rearden
- Oct. 17, 2023
Background
The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The order governs confidential material exchanged during discovery, the pretrial exchange of information and documents. The court found good cause for a tailored order because discovery would involve nonpublic or confidential information whose disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party with confidentiality obligations.
What the Order Covers
The order permits a producing person to designate as confidential only material whose public disclosure is restricted by law or could harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; and personal or intimate information. The court may later give additional categories confidential status.
Recipients may disclose confidential discovery material only to specifically identified groups, including the parties and certain insurers; counsel working on this case and their assigned staff; litigation-support vendors; mediators or arbitrators; certain people identified in documents; potential witnesses; experts and specialized advisers; deposition transcription providers; and the court. Some recipients must first read the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals. It may not be used for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order does not waive objections to discovery, attorney-client privilege, or work-product protection, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.
Confidentiality Disputes and Court Filings
A party may challenge a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice stating the grounds for the objection. Parties may also request additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only restriction, and must bring unresolved disputes to the court under the applicable individual rules.
The order does not create an automatic right to file confidential material under seal. A party seeking to file material under seal must submit a letter-motion explaining the basis for sealing and must publicly file a redacted version while filing the unredacted version under seal. The court retains discretion over confidential treatment and warns that it is unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial.
Privilege, Personally Identifying Information, and End of Case
If privileged or work-product material is accidentally disclosed, the disclosure does not by itself waive the protection. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure and provide a certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to order production. The party asserting privilege retains the burden of establishing that the protection applies.
Recipients must safeguard personally identifying information, such as Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passwords, and information usable for identity theft. A recipient experiencing a data breach must promptly notify the producing person and cooperate in addressing it.
Within 30 days after the final disposition of the case, confidential discovery material generally must be returned or destroyed and certified as returned or destroyed. Attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and willful violations may lead to contempt sanctions.
Disposition
The opinion is a stipulated protective order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying claims. On October 17, 2023, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden entered the order by signing “SO ORDERED.”
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.