Sirius Technology Advanced Research v. Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment

Background

Sirius Technology Advanced Research, LLC and Star Unacknowledged, LLC are the plaintiffs, and Chicken Soup for the Soul Entertainment, Inc. and other defendants are the parties to the action. Through their attorneys, all parties asked the court to issue a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery, the pretrial process in which parties exchange information and evidence.

The parties stipulated to the proposed terms. Judge Ho found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Protective-order requirements

The order covers discovery material, meaning information of any kind produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate only portions it reasonably and in good faith believes contain specified confidential 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; or another category the court later protects.

People subject to the order generally may not disclose designated confidential material except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties and their insurers; counsel and their assigned staff; outside vendors working on the case; mediators and arbitrators; certain people identified in documents; potential witnesses; experts and other specialized advisers; deposition transcription services; and the court and its personnel. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement, which counsel must retain.

Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals—not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes. The order does not waive objections to discovery, waive privilege or other protections, or decide whether evidence is admissible at trial.

Sealing and disputes

A party filing material under seal must also publicly file a redacted version and submit a letter brief and supporting declaration giving a particularized justification for continued sealing. The court retains discretion to decide whether confidential treatment is appropriate for material submitted with a motion or other proceeding. The order warns that the court is unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial, even if it was previously designated confidential.

Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment, before trial. If the parties cannot resolve those disputes promptly, they must bring them to the court under its individual rules. Confidential material may also be produced in response to lawful compulsory process or a government requirement, subject to notice to the producing party when reasonably possible and, if time permits, at least 10 days before disclosure.

Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of specified case-related materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

Judge Dale Ho entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order and ordered covered persons to comply with it. The order does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses. The court also stated that confidentiality designations do not control whether information receives confidential treatment in future opinions or orders.