Richardson v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC
- Philip Halpern
- 7:21-cv-08275
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Richardson v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, Judge Halpern entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and related disclosures.
The order binds the parties, their corporate parents, successors and assigns, representatives, agents, experts, consultants, third parties providing discovery, and other interested people with actual or constructive notice of the order. It also governs counsel, service providers, witnesses, mediators, arbitrators, and other recipients of designated confidential discovery material.
What happened
In Richardson v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC, the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause to issue a confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case.
The order limits disclosure of material designated confidential to specified people, including the parties, lawyers, service providers, certain witnesses and experts who sign nondisclosure agreements, and the court. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential material under seal, handling accidentally disclosed privileged material, and returning or destroying confidential material after the case ends.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered the parties and other people subject to the order to follow these requirements, with possible contempt sanctions for violations. The order governs discovery and confidentiality; it does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or the admissibility of evidence at trial.
The detailed version
- Richardson v. Edgewell Personal Care, LLC · No. 7:21-cv-08275
- Philip Halpern
- Mar. 1, 2024
Nature of the Order
The court entered a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order is a court order that limits the use and disclosure of information exchanged during discovery. The parties, through counsel, requested protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information, and the court found good cause for a tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Information That May Be Designated Confidential
A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business plans, product-development information, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information about an individual; or another category that the court later gives confidential status. Designations must identify the protected material clearly. The order also provides procedures for designating deposition testimony and exhibits, including a 30-day period after a deposition during which the entire transcript must be treated as confidential.
Disclosure Limits and Nondisclosure Agreements
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to categories listed in the order. Those categories include the parties and their insurers; counsel and their litigation staff; outside vendors and service providers; mediators or arbitrators; people identified as authors or recipients of a document; certain witnesses; experts and other specialized advisers; deposition stenographers; and the court and its personnel.
Before receiving confidential material, certain witnesses, experts, advisers, mediators, and arbitrators must receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement. Counsel must retain those agreements and produce them to opposing counsel before the person testifies or when the case concludes, whichever comes first. Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, competitive, commercial, or other litigation purposes.
Court Filings and Challenges to Designations
A party filing confidential 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 court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding, and stated that it is unlikely to seal material introduced into evidence at trial merely because it was previously designated confidential.
A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice that specifically states the grounds for the objection. A party seeking additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation in extraordinary circumstances, may use a similar procedure. Unresolved disputes must be presented to the court under its individual practices.
Privilege, Return of Materials, and Enforcement
The order states that accidentally disclosing material protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine does not waive those protections. After receiving notice of an inadvertent disclosure, the receiving party generally must return or destroy the material within five business days and provide counsel’s certification. The producing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to order production. The producing party retains the burden of establishing that the material is privileged or protected.
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they retained no copies or other reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of specified litigation materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
The court entered the stipulated protective order. This order resolves confidentiality and discovery-management issues only; the opinion does not rule on the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.