2591028 Ontario Limited v. Advacare Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 4, 2024
Docket1:20-cv-10876
StatusUnknown

This text of 2591028 Ontario Limited v. Advacare Inc. (2591028 Ontario Limited v. Advacare Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
2591028 Ontario Limited v. Advacare Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

The Clerk shall seal Exhibits A-F of ECF No. 60, the Re Declaration, viewable only by the parties and Chambers personnel. Wizm@ Moritt Hock ow SO ORDERED. & Hamroftus PE SRS ae ee ee Dated: 3/4/24 /s/ Alvin K. Hellerstein Michael S. Re New York, New York Alvin K. Hellerstein Partner United States District Judge NY and NJ Bars Email: mre@moritthock.com June 30, 2023 VIA ECF (AND FAX 212-805-7942) The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 500 Pearl Street, Rm. 1050 New York, New York 10007 Re: 2591028 Ontario Limited d/b/a Focus Global v. Advacare Inc., Case No. 1:20-C V-10876 (AKH) Dear Judge Hellerstein: This firm is counsel to Defendant Advacare, Inc. (“Advacare”) in the above-captioned action. Advacare respectfully requests that this Court grant it permission to file under seal certain documents referenced in the Reply Declaration of Michael S. Re, dated June 30, 2023 (the “Re Reply Declaration”), to be filed in further support of Advacare’s motion seeking, inter alia, an order pursuant to FRCP 37 compelling Plaintiff 2591028 Ontario Limited d/b/a Focus Global (“Focus Global” or “Plaintiff’) to produce outstanding discovery. Dkt. No. 50. Specifically, Advacare seeks leave to file under seal the following documents annexed to the Re Reply Declaration, each of which has been designated as “confidential” by Plaintiff Focus Global pursuant to the confidentiality agreement dated May 18, 2022, entered into by the parties herein (“Confidentiality Agreement’) (a copy of the Confidentiality Agreement is annexed hereto as Exhibit “1”): Re Reply Declaration, Exhibit A: United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Summary, CBP Form 7501 (12/19), Entry No. 0043911-5, and related documents (produced by Plaintiff as Document Nos. 00100-00104);

400 Garden City Plaza, Garden City, New York 11530 + P: 516.873.2000 + F: 516.873.2010 * www.moritthock.com

Nite Moritt Hock & Hamroffiu ov ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein June 30, 2023 Page 2 of 3

Re Reply Declaration, Exhibit B: United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Summary, CBP Form 7501 (12/19), Entry No. 0046307-3, and related documents (produced by Plaintiff as Document Nos. 00129-00130, 00133-00134); Re Reply Declaration, Exhibit C: United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Summary, CBP Form 7501 (12/19), Entry No. 0046646-4, and related documents (produced by Plaintiff as Document Nos. 00135-00137, 00139-00141); Re Reply Declaration, Exhibit D: United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Summary, CBP Form 7501 (12/19), Entry No. 0047029-2, and related documents (produced by Plaintiff as Document Nos. 00122-00124, 00127-00128);

Re Reply Declaration, Exhibit E: United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Summary, CBP Form 7501 (12/19), Entry No. 0049136-3, and related documents (produced by Plaintiff as Document Nos. 00110-00115, 00117-00120); Re Reply Declaration, Exhibit F: United States Department of Homeland Security, United States Customs and Border Protection Entry Summary, CBP Form 7501 (12/19), Entry No. 0049879-8, and related documents (produced by Plaintiff as Document Nos. 00105-00109, 00118).

vi iF Moritt Hock □□□ & Hamroffue ATTORNEYS AT LAW The Honorable Alvin K. Hellerstein June 30, 2023 Page 3 of 3

This motion is made necessary because Plaintiff has designated these documents, which were produced by Plaintiff in discovery, as “confidential” pursuant to paragraph “2” of the Confidentiality Agreement. Advacare previously requested that counsel for Plaintiff Focus Global remove the confidentiality designation for the documents. A copy of Advacare’s request is annexed hereto as Exhibit “2.” However, Plaintiff has refused to modify the “confidential” designations of the documents. Accordingly, Advacare seeks to file the documents under seal unless and until the Court determines that the documents should not be designated “confidential.” The undersigned is available to speak with the Court should Your Honor have any questions or concerns regarding this request. Respectfully submitted, s/ Michael S. Re Michael S. Re

cc: Plaintiffs’ counsel via ECF

Exhibit 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ee et i i een eK 2591028 ONTARIO LIMITED Case No. 1:20-cv-10876-AKH d/b/a FOCUS GLOBAL, Plaintiff, STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY - against - AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER ADVACARE INC., Defendant. ee oe ee ve Dl ot SA ot □□ ee x ALVIN K. HALLERSTEIN, District Judge: WHEREAS, all the parties to this action (collectively the “Parties” and individually a “Party’”’) request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that they may need to disclose in connection with discovery in this action; WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; and WHEREAS, this Court finds good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order — including without limitation the Parties to this action (including their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns), their representatives, agents, experts and consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order— will adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: 1. With respect to “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed by the Parties in the course of discovery in this action) that a Party has designated as “Confidential” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits.

2. The Party producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing Party”) may designate as “Confidential” only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) previously non-disclosed financial information or tax documents (including without limitation profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sale margins), (b) previously non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non- public company; (c) previously non-disclosed business plans, product-development information, trade secrets, or marketing plans; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; (e) believes in good faith is protected by a right to privacy under federal or state law or any other applicable privilege or right related to confidentiality or privacy; or (f) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential Status. 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel may designate such portion

as “Confidential” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted.

4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2591028 Ontario Limited v. Advacare Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/2591028-ontario-limited-v-advacare-inc-nysd-2024.