Japna, Inc. v. Selfx Innovations Inc.

Background

The parties stipulated to a protective agreement because discovery was likely to involve confidential, proprietary, or private information. The order identifies possible protected material including trade secrets; methods, techniques, processes, plans, and specifications; customer, vendor, personnel, pricing, sales, revenue, profit, and market information; and confidential business practices, strategic plans, research, development, commercial information, and information implicating third-party privacy rights.

The order states that public disclosure could cause material and irreparable harm by giving competitors information about the parties’ plans, operations, technology, and finances. It also states that the order does not automatically protect every disclosure or permit parties to file confidential material under seal. Protection applies only to information that qualifies under applicable legal principles and is designated under the order.

Main Provisions

The order creates two designations:

- “CONFIDENTIAL” information may be disclosed, subject to stated conditions, to specified recipients such as outside counsel and their necessary staff, up to three qualifying in-house attorneys, retained consultants who sign the required agreement, the court and its personnel, court reporters, professional vendors, certain witnesses, document authors or recipients, and mediators who sign the required agreement. - “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL – ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” information may generally be disclosed only to narrower categories, including outside counsel, qualifying retained consultants, the court and its personnel, court reporters, specified vendors and consultants who sign the required agreement, certain deposition witnesses, document authors or recipients, and mediators. The order also permits limited access by a party who has already seen or received the document and allows Claudia Ortiz to view certain such documents in person with her counsel when counsel reasonably and in good faith determines that viewing is necessary for her defense.

Protected material may be used only to prosecute, defend, or attempt to settle the action and related appeals. Recipients must store it securely and may not disclose it outside the authorized categories. The order does not restrict a producing party’s use of its own protected material.

The order establishes procedures for designating documents, electronic files, tangible items, and deposition testimony. It prohibits mass or indiscriminate designations and allows sanctions for clearly unjustified or improperly motivated designations. A party or nonparty may challenge a confidentiality designation, but the parties must first attempt to resolve the dispute without court involvement. Until the court rules, the material remains protected under the existing designation.

The order also provides procedures for filing redacted or sealed documents. A party seeking to keep material under seal must file the required public and sealed versions, confer with the other parties, and, if disagreement remains, submit a letter motion explaining the request and proposed redactions. The order does not govern the use of protected material at trial, which remains subject to the trial judge’s orders.

Duration and Enforcement

The confidentiality obligations continue after the action’s final disposition unless the designating party agrees otherwise in writing or a court orders otherwise. Within 60 calendar days after final disposition, each receiving party generally must return or destroy protected material and certify that it has not retained copies or summaries. Outside counsel may retain one archival copy of specified case materials, including filed documents, transcripts, exhibits, expert reports, and attorney or consultant work product.

The order addresses inadvertent failures to designate material, unauthorized disclosures, inadvertent production of privileged or otherwise protected material, and protected information sought through subpoenas or orders in other litigation. It also extends the order’s protections and remedies to qualifying confidential material produced by nonparties in this action. A violation may result in appropriate measures, including contempt proceedings or monetary sanctions.

Ruling and Effect

For good cause shown, Judge Robert W. Lehrburger ordered the parties’ stipulated protective agreement on November 20, 2023. The order regulates discovery and confidentiality in the case; the opinion text does not resolve the merits of any underlying claim or defense.