Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 11, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-09511
StatusUnknown

This text of Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.) 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
Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

AMALGAMATED BANK,

Plaintiff,

- against – Case No. 1:23-cv-09511 (JMF)

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A. AND ARMON

WARREN,

Defendants.

CONFIDENTIALITY STIPULATION AND PROPOSED PROTECTIVE ORDER

This Protective Order is issued to facilitate document disclosure and production of confidential documents and information between the parties, by agreement. This Protective Order does not require or order the production of any specific documents or information. Rather, because discovery sought by the parties to this lawsuit is likely to involve the production of documents and things or information containing private, personal, financial, business, competitive, business operational, proprietary, trade secret or other information of a sensitive nature about a party (hereafter collectively referred to as “Confidential Information”), and witness testimony containing Confidential Information, this Order is entered to facilitate agreed discovery while safeguarding confidentiality; WHEREAS, the parties having agreed to the following terms of confidentiality, and the Court having found that good cause exists for the issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby ORDERED that the following restrictions and procedures shall apply to the information and documents exchanged by the parties in connection with this action: 1. This Agreed Protective Order shall apply to information, documents, excerpts from documents, and other materials produced in this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governing disclosure and discovery.

2. Counsel for any party may designate any document or information, in whole or in part, as confidential if counsel determines, in good faith, that such designation is necessary to protect the interests of the client in information that is proprietary, a trade secret, or otherwise sensitive non-public information (“Confidential Information”). Information and documents designated by a party as confidential will be stamped “CONFIDENTIAL.”

3. “CONFIDENTIAL” information means information, documents, or things that have not been made public by the disclosing party and that the disclosing party reasonably and in good faith believes contains or comprises (a) trade secrets, (b) proprietary business information, or (c) information implicating an individual’s legitimate expectation of privacy.

4. “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY’S EYES ONLY” means CONFIDENTIAL information that the disclosing party reasonably and in good faith believes is so highly sensitive that its disclosure to a competitor could result in significant competitive or commercial disadvantage to the designating party.

5. Documents shall be designated by stamping or otherwise marking the documents with the words “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL-FOR ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” thus clearly identifying the category of Designated Material for which protection is sought under the terms of this Order. Designated Material not reduced to documentary form shall be designated by the producing party in a reasonably equivalent way.

6. Notwithstanding the designation of information as “CONFIDENTIAL” in discovery, there is no presumption that such information shall be filed with the Court under seal. The parties shall follow the Court’s procedures for requests for filing under seal.

7. The parties will use reasonable care to avoid designating as confidential documents or information that does not need to be designated as such.

8. A party may submit a request in writing to the party who produced Designated Material that the designation be modified or withdrawn. If the Designating Person does not agree to the redesignation within fifteen business days, the objecting party may apply to the Court for relief. Upon any such application, the burden shall be on the Designating Person to show why the designation is proper. Before serving a written challenge, the objecting party must attempt in good faith to meet and confer with the Designating Person in an effort to resolve the matter. The Court may award sanctions if it finds that a party’s position was taken without substantial justification.

9. Information, documents, and other materials may be designated by the producing party in the manner permitted (“the Designating Person”). All such information, documents, excerpts from documents, and other materials will constitute “Designated Material” under this Order. The designation shall be either (a) “CONFIDENTIAL” or (b) “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” This Order shall apply to Designated Material produced by any party or third-party in this action.

10. The Confidential Information disclosed will be held and used by the person receiving such information solely for use in connection with the action.

11. In the event a party challenges another party’s designation of confidentiality, counsel shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, and in the absence of a resolution, the challenging party may seek resolution by the Court. Nothing in this Protective Order constitutes an admission by any party that Confidential Information disclosed in this case is relevant or admissible. Each party reserves the right to object to the use or admissibility of the Confidential Information.

12. Documents designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” shall not be disclosed to any person, except:

a. The requesting party and counsel, including in-house counsel;

b. Employees of such counsel assigned to and necessary to assist in the litigation;

c. Consultants or experts assisting in the prosecution or defense of the matter, to the extent deemed necessary by counsel; and

d. The Court (including the mediator, or other person having access to any Confidential Information by virtue of his or her position with the Court).

The parties should meet and confer if any production requires a designation of “For Attorneys’ or Experts’ Eyes Only.”

13. Designated Material shall not be used or disclosed for any purpose other than the litigation of this action and may be disclosed only as follows:

a. Parties: Material designated “CONFIDENTIAL” may be disclosed to parties to this action or directors, officers and employees of parties to this action, who have a legitimate need to see the information in connection with their responsibilities for overseeing the litigation or assisting counsel in preparing the action for trial or settlement. Before Designated Material is disclosed for this purpose, each such person must agree to be bound by this Order by signing a document substantially in the form of Exhibit A.

b. Witnesses or Prospective Witnesses: Designated Material, including material designated “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” may be disclosed to a witness or prospective witness in this action, but only for purposes of testimony or preparation of testimony in this case, whether at trial, hearing, or deposition, but it may not be retained by the witness or prospective witness. Before Designated Material is disclosed for this purpose, each such person must agree to be bound by this Order, by signing a document substantially in the form of Exhibit A.

c. Outside Experts: Designated Material, including material designated “CONFIDENTIAL -ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” may be disclosed to an outside expert for the purpose of obtaining the expert’s assistance in the litigation. Before Designated Material is disclosed for this purpose, each such person must agree to be bound by this Order, by signing a document substantially in the form of Exhibit A.

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)
Amalgamated Bank v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amalgamated-bank-v-jpmorgan-chase-bank-na-nysd-2024.