Spindel v. Alderfer Family Farm LLC

Background

Jeffrey Spindel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, brought this action against Alderfer Family Farm LLC and Alderfer Poultry Farm, Inc. The parties, through counsel, agreed that discovery could require disclosure of nonpublic and competitively sensitive information. They asked the court to issue a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits limits on discovery disclosures to protect confidential information. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Confidential Information and Permitted Disclosures

The order defines “Discovery Material” broadly as information of any kind produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate as confidential only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information, confidential business practices, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, product-development information, personal or intimate information, or another category that the court later protects.

People subject to the order generally may not disclose designated material except as the order allows. Permitted recipients include the parties and their in-house counsel, insurers and their counsel, counsel retained for the case and their staff, vendors working on the case, certain mediators or arbitrators, document authors and addressees, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription staff, and the court and its personnel. Mediators, arbitrators, potential witnesses, experts, and specialized advisers must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes.

Court Filings and Challenges

A party filing confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The order states that sealing requires a particularized justification and that the court may unseal material if it cannot make specific findings that sealing is essential and narrowly tailored. The court retains discretion over whether to treat designated material as confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding, and cautions that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they must bring it to the court under the court’s individual practices; the material remains confidential while the dispute is pending unless the producing party withdraws or waives the designation. Parties may also request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’ eyes only, by following a similar procedure.

Privilege, Return of Materials, and Enforcement

If privileged or work-product-protected information is accidentally disclosed, the disclosure does not waive the protection under the order. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after receiving notice and provide a certification. The producing party must then provide a privilege log within five business days. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production, but the motion must be filed under seal and may not rely on the fact of inadvertent production as a ground for relief.

Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they retained no copies or reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of specified case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.

Disposition

The parties stipulated and agreed to the protective order, and the court ordered it on April 24, 2024. This opinion is a discovery and confidentiality order; it does not resolve the merits of the underlying dispute.