Cajun Conti, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company
- Katherine Failla
- 1:23-cv-08844
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Cajun Conti v. Starr Surplus, Judge Failla approved a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their use in the action.
Cajun Conti, LLC, Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, vendors, witnesses, experts, insurers, and other people who receive or have actual notice of confidential discovery material.
What happened
Cajun Conti, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company concerned the parties’ joint request for a protective order covering nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The order allows parties to mark certain financial, business, personal, and other court-approved information as confidential. It limits disclosure and use of that material, sets procedures for court filings and challenges to confidentiality designations, protects against waiver from inadvertent production of privileged information, and generally requires return or destruction of confidential material after the case ends.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla found good cause for the order and issued it on April 29, 2024. The order governs the parties and other people who receive protected material, while stating that the court has not decided that any particular material is confidential or admissible.
The detailed version
- Cajun Conti, LLC v. Starr Surplus Lines Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-08844
- Katherine Failla
- Apr. 29, 2024
Nature of the order
The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause and entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order addresses pretrial discovery and does not decide the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.
Confidential information
A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business records, plans, product-development information, insurance policies, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; or another category later given confidential status by the court. The producing party must clearly mark protected material and provide a version with the confidential information redacted when required. Deposition testimony and exhibits may be designated during the deposition or within 30 days afterward. During that 30-day period, the entire deposition transcript must be treated as confidential.
A producing party may later correct an omitted designation by written notice and must provide replacement versions within two business days. The order states that a confidentiality designation does not waive objections to discovery, privilege, or protection, and does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial.
Disclosure and use restrictions
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to listed categories of people, including the parties and their insurers; counsel and their staff; litigation vendors; mediators or arbitrators; certain people identified on a document; potential witnesses; experts and specialized advisers; deposition stenographers; and the court and its personnel. Potential witnesses and experts outside the other listed categories must first receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for another purpose or proceeding.
Court filings and challenges
The order requires a party filing confidential discovery material, or a filing that reveals it, to publicly file a redacted version and seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal. Any sealing or redaction must be narrowly tailored and consistent with the presumption of public access to court documents. The order also warns that the court is unlikely to seal or protect material introduced at trial merely because it was previously designated confidential.
A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request stricter limits, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment, by written notice before trial. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they must bring it to the court under the court’s individual practices.
Privileged material and conclusion of the case
The order provides that an inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privileged, work-product, or otherwise protected information does not waive the protection. After notice, the receiving party generally must identify and return, sequester, destroy, or delete the material unless it contests the claim. A party contesting privilege must seek a court order and may not use or disclose the challenged material while the dispute is pending. The producing party retains the burden of establishing privilege or protection when challenged.
Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material, subject to stated exceptions for reasonably inaccessible backup media and legitimate ordinary-course retention. The order continues to bind people who received confidential material and gives the court authority to enforce its terms and impose contempt sanctions. Judge Failla ordered the parties to comply with the protective order on April 29, 2024.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.