Monroe v. The Northstar Group, Inc.
- Ho
- 1:23-cv-06220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Monroe v. Northstar Source Group, Judge Ho entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery.
The parties, their counsel, employees, agents, service providers, witnesses, experts, court personnel, and other people who receive or have actual notice of the protected discovery material are bound by the order.
What happened
T. Eric Monroe v. Northstar Source Group, LLC, et al. involved the parties’ request for rules protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The parties agreed to the order’s terms.
The order limits disclosure of information marked “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential—Attorney’s Eyes Only,” allows its use only for this case and appeals, and establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and seeking court permission to file materials under seal. It also addresses accidentally produced privileged materials and requires most recipients to return or destroy confidential materials after the case ends.
Judge Dalee Ho found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the stipulated protective order. The court retained authority to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Monroe v. The Northstar Group, Inc. · No. 1:23-cv-06220
- Ho
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Terms of the Order
The order creates two confidentiality levels: “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential—Attorney’s Eyes Only.” A producing party may designate only portions of discovery material that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain protected information, including previously undisclosed financial information, business plans, personal or intimate information, ownership or control information, or other sensitive business information protected under Rule 26.
Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including the parties, counsel and necessary staff, service providers, mediators or arbitrators, certain authors or recipients of documents, qualified witnesses and experts who sign nondisclosure agreements, court personnel, and other people approved by the court or agreed to in writing. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals, not for another purpose or litigation.
The order establishes procedures for marking discovery material, correcting an inadvertent failure to mark material as confidential, objecting to a confidentiality designation, and requesting additional limits such as attorney-only access. It also states that the court has not decided that any designated material is actually confidential and may decline to seal material introduced at trial.
Court Filings, Privilege, and Return of Materials
A party seeking to file confidential discovery material under seal must publicly file a redacted version and submit an unredacted version under seal, supported by an application and declaration explaining why sealing is justified. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or arguments about admissibility.
The order provides that accidentally producing attorney-client privileged or work-product-protected material does not waive the protection. After receiving notice, the recipient generally must return or destroy the material within five business days, while retaining the ability to ask the court to resolve a privilege dispute under seal.
Within 60 days after the final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they kept no copies. Attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of certain case records and work product, which 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 Dalee Ho ordered the parties and other people covered by the order to comply with the stipulated protective order. The order was entered on April 23, 2024.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.