Poolos v. Paramount Global

Background

Alexandra Poolos sued Paramount Global, CBS Broadcasting Inc., and CBS News Inc. The parties, through their attorneys, jointly requested 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 documents.

The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order and entered the parties’ stipulated agreement.

Main Terms

A producing party may designate discovery material as “Confidential” if 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 later given confidential status by the court.

The order limits disclosure of designated material to specified recipients, including the parties, insurers and their counsel, attorneys and litigation-support personnel, outside vendors, mediators, certain people identified in a document, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Potential witnesses, mediators, experts, and certain other recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They must take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the material and certify that they have not retained 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.

Challenges and Court Filings

The order allows a party to object to a confidentiality designation and requires the parties to bring unresolved disputes to the court under its individual practices. It also permits requests for additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, in extraordinary circumstances.

The order expressly states that it does not waive objections to discovery, waive privilege or other protection, or decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. It also states that the court has not determined that any designated material is actually confidential. Confidentiality during discovery does not create a presumption that the material may be filed under seal. Parties must follow the court’s procedures for sealed filings, and the court warned that it is unlikely to keep material confidential if it is introduced at trial.

Ruling

Judge Gregory H. Woods ordered the parties and other people with actual notice of the order to follow its terms, subject to contempt sanctions for violations. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce the order or impose contempt sanctions. The order addressed discovery confidentiality only; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims or defenses.