Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Oct. 20, 2023

Wolf v. Dollar General Corporation

Judge
Philip Halpern
Docket
7:23-cv-00558
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

In Joseph Wolf v. Dolgen New York, Judge Halpern entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials.

Who this affects

The order affects Joseph Wolf, Carmen Wolf, Dolgen New York, LLC d/b/a Dolgen, their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns, and other people subject to the order, including representatives, agents, experts, consultants, third parties providing discovery, and people with actual or constructive notice of it.

What happened

Joseph Wolf and Carmen Wolf sued Dolgen New York, LLC d/b/a Dolgen, and the parties agreed through their lawyers to rules protecting certain nonpublic information exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause to issue the order in Joseph Wolf, Carmen Wolf v. Dolgen New York, LLC d/b/a Dolgen.

The order allows certain financial, business, ownership, marketing, personal, and other court-approved information to be marked confidential. It limits disclosure to specified people, requires additional recipients such as witnesses and experts to sign nondisclosure agreements, and explains procedures for objections, court filings, accidental disclosure of privileged material, and returning or destroying protected material.

Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the parties and other people covered by the order to follow these confidentiality rules, subject to contempt penalties. The order governs the pretrial phase, survives the end of the case, and preserves the court’s authority to enforce it.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Wolf v. Dollar General Corporation · No. 7:23-cv-00558
Judge
Philip Halpern
Date
Oct. 20, 2023

Nature of the Order

The court entered a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties, through counsel, requested protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Information Covered

The order defines “Discovery Material” as information of any kind produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate material as “Confidential” only when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes:

- Previously undisclosed financial information, such as profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, or sales margins; - Previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; - Previously undisclosed business plans, product-development information, or marketing plans; - Information of a personal or intimate nature about an individual; or - Another category that the court later gives confidential status.

The order sets marking procedures for documents and other discovery material. Deposition testimony may be designated during the deposition or within 30 days after the deposition ends. During that 30-day period, the entire deposition transcript is treated as confidential. A producing party may also correct a prior failure to designate material by giving written notice to earlier recipients.

Limits on Disclosure and Use

Confidential material may be disclosed only to listed recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation support staff, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified on documents, stenographers, the court, and certain witnesses and experts. Before confidential material is disclosed to a mediator, arbitrator, witness, or expert under the specified provisions, that person must receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement.

Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes. The order also requires precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure, including encryption for electronic materials shipped to authorized recipients and secure tracked shipping for paper materials.

Court Filings and Challenges

A party filing material under seal must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The party must also submit a letter brief and supporting declaration explaining, on a particularized basis, why continued sealing is justified. The order states that the court retains discretion over whether to keep designated material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding, and that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice stating the grounds for the objection. A party may also request additional disclosure limits, such as “attorneys’ eyes only,” in extraordinary circumstances. If the parties cannot promptly resolve either dispute, counsel must present it to the court under the court’s individual practices.

Privilege and Return of Materials

The order provides that an inadvertent disclosure of information protected by attorney-client privilege or attorney work-product protection does not waive that protection. After receiving notice of such a claim, the receiving party must return or destroy the information within five business days and provide counsel’s certification. The producing party must then provide a privilege log within five business days after receiving notice that the information was returned or destroyed. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production, and the producing party retains the burden of establishing privilege or protection.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return all confidential discovery material or destroy it if the producing party permits destruction. They must certify that they retained no copies or reproductions, although specifically retained attorneys may keep archival copies of listed litigation materials subject to the order.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered all people covered by the order to comply with its terms, subject to contempt. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction over people subject to it to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions. The order does not waive objections to discovery, waive privilege or other protection, or decide whether evidence is admissible at trial.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.