10110 Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:23-cv-07179
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In 10110 Group v. Mt. Hawley, Judge Furman entered a protective order governing confidential discovery and limiting disclosure.
The parties, their counsel, insurers, employees, agents, vendors, witnesses, experts, mediators, arbitrators, court personnel, and other people who receive or have actual notice of designated confidential discovery material.
What happened
In 10110 Group, LLC d/b/a Brandon Center Hotel v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company, the parties asked the court to adopt their agreement protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause for a tailored order.
The order limits confidential discovery to specified people and uses, including the lawsuit and any appeals. It creates procedures for labeling information, challenging confidentiality designations, handling deposition testimony, returning or destroying materials, and addressing subpoenas. It also requires public redacted filings and a separate request for any sealing; the court did not find that any particular document was confidential.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the parties and others subject to the order to follow these requirements and retained authority to enforce them. The order concerns discovery and confidentiality and does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- 10110 Group, LLC v. Mt. Hawley Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-07179
- Jesse Furman
- Mar. 8, 2024
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets rules for handling information exchanged during discovery, the pretrial process in which parties obtain information relevant to the case. The parties agreed to the proposed terms, and the court found good cause for issuing a tailored order.
Confidentiality Rules
The order permits a producing party to designate only portions of discovery material that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain specified types of information, including previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; and categories later given confidential status by the court.
The order establishes procedures for marking documents and identifying confidential deposition testimony. A party may later correct an omitted confidentiality designation by giving written notice and providing replacement copies. The order states that a confidentiality designation does not waive objections to discovery or privilege, and does not decide whether material will be admissible at trial.
Permitted Disclosures and Uses
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed to the parties and their insurers, case counsel and their staff, outside vendors assisting with the case, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in a document, potential witnesses, experts and other specialized advisers, deposition transcription personnel, and the court and its personnel. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They must take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the material and certify that they retained no copies or summaries, subject to the order's exception for archival copies retained by specifically retained attorneys. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Court Filings and Sealing
The order requires a party filing confidential discovery material or papers that reveal it to publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. But the court specifically clarified that the order does not itself authorize filing documents under seal without a prior court order. The court made no finding that any particular document is confidential and stated that confidentiality and sealing would be considered document by document, subject to the presumption of public access to judicial documents. The court also warned that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed merely because it was previously designated confidential.
Disposition
The court ordered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order on March 8, 2024. It directed the Clerk of Court to terminate Docket No. 39, also referred to in the order as ECF No. 39. This was a discovery-related procedural order and did not resolve the underlying claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.