Thatcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc.
- Philip Halpern
- 7:23-cv-09161
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Thatcher v. Equifax, Judge Halpern entered a protective order governing confidential discovery information.
Lockima Thatcher, Equifax Information Services, LLC, their counsel and representatives, and other people who receive discovery material covered by the order.
What happened
In Lockima Thatcher v. Equifax Information Services, LLC, the parties jointly asked the Southern District of New York to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery.
The court entered the agreed protective order after finding good cause. It limits when confidential discovery information may be disclosed, requires certain recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements, and explains procedures for sealing court filings, challenging confidentiality designations, handling inadvertently disclosed privileged material, and returning or destroying protected information.
Judge Philip M. Halpern ordered that the protective order would remain effective after the case ends and that the court would retain authority to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Thatcher v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. · No. 7:23-cv-09161
- Philip Halpern
- May 6, 2024
Background
The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a confidentiality agreement and 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 court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Protective-order terms
The order defines discovery material as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate material as confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, product-development information, personal or intimate information, or another category the court later protects.
People covered by the order generally may disclose confidential discovery material only to specified recipients, including the parties, counsel, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document recipients, potential witnesses, experts and advisers, deposition stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only for prosecuting or defending this case and related appeals, not for business, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
The order also establishes procedures for marking material confidential, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, objecting to a confidentiality designation, and requesting additional limits such as attorneys’ eyes only treatment. It states that a confidentiality designation does not decide whether evidence is admissible and does not automatically require court filings to remain sealed. Parties seeking to file material under seal must publicly file a redacted version and provide a particularized justification for sealing.
If privileged or attorney-work-product material is inadvertently disclosed, the receiving party must return or destroy it within five business days after notice and provide a certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to order production. The order also requires recipients, within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, to return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they kept no copies, subject to a limited archival-copy provision for attorneys retained in the case.
Ruling
The court entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order. It ordered that the order would survive termination of the litigation and remain binding on people who received confidential discovery material. The court retained jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the order or impose contempt sanctions. Judge Philip M. Halpern signed the order on May 6, 2024.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.