Glasstech,Inc. v. Freund
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:23-cv-06004
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Glasstech,Inc. v. Freund, Judge Gardephe entered a protective order governing discovery and limiting disclosure of designated confidential information.
The parties, their corporate parents, successors and assigns, counsel, representatives, agents, experts, consultants, litigation vendors, witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and other people with actual or constructive notice of the order.
What happened
Glasstech,Inc. v. Freund concerns the parties’ agreed request for a court order protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery.
The order permits parties to mark specified information as confidential, including certain financial information, business plans, ownership information, and personal information. It limits disclosure to specified people, requires nondisclosure agreements for some recipients, sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and restricts use of the information to this lawsuit and related appeals.
Judge Paul G. Gardephe found good cause for the order and ordered the parties and other covered persons to follow it. The order also sets procedures for sealed court filings, requires return or approved destruction of confidential materials after the case ends, and allows the court to enforce the order.
The detailed version
- Glasstech,Inc. v. Freund · No. 1:23-cv-06004
- Paul Gardephe
- Mar. 28, 2024
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The order states that the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order covering the pretrial phase of the case.
Terms of the Order
The order allows a producing party to designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes is confidential. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business plans, product-development or marketing information, and personal or intimate information. The court may also later grant confidential status to another category of information.
Confidential discovery material generally may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties, their insurers and insurer counsel, counsel retained for the case and their support staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in a document, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcribers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The order requires confidential material filed with the court to be accompanied by a publicly filed redacted version and an unredacted version filed under seal. A party objecting to a confidentiality designation may provide written notice explaining the objection; unresolved disputes are to be presented to the court under the judge’s individual practices. The order also provides a procedure for requesting additional limits on disclosure, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation.
Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial. It also explains procedures for responding to subpoenas or other compulsory process, requires precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and requires most recipients to return or destroy the material within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals. The order allows specially retained attorneys to keep certain archival case files, which remain subject to the order.
Ruling and Effect
Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on March 28, 2024. The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction over persons subject to it as necessary to enforce its terms or impose contempt sanctions. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the lawsuit.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.