Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. v. Mattress Firm, Inc.

District Court, W.D. North Carolina·Decided October 6, 2020·No. 3:20-cv-00383·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA STATESVILLE DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:20-CV-383-MOC-DCK

) BARNHARDT MANUFACTURING CO. ) DBA NCFI POLYURETHANES, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) MATTRESS FIRM, INC., ) ) Defendant. ) ) )

STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 26(c)

It appearing to the Court that a Protective Order, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, should be entered, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. This Order shall govern the use, designation, and handling of all “Produced Information.” As used in this Order, “Produced Information” means all documents, materials, discovery responses, testimony, tangible things, and other information provided in response to a formal discovery request made in connection with this action and all documents, materials, and other information provided by or obtained in connection with this action from any person who is subject to a fiduciary duty, confidentiality agreement or other obligation to keep the documents, materials or other information confidential. 2. Only information related to nonpublic, confidential information or proprietary information that is not generally available may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” including without limitation proprietary, trade secret, confidential research, development, business, financial or commercial information, or competitively sensitive trademark and/or copyright information used in or relating to such party’s business that is believed to be unknown or unavailable to the public. Only highly sensitive commercial or competitive information, such as client and contact identities, marketing plans and cost/pricing/profit information, believed to be unknown or unavailable to the public, may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.” 3. As used in this Order, “Confidential Information” means any document or information designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” pursuant to this Order. 4. As used in this Order, “document” or “documents” shall have the same definition as in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of this District.

5. Nothing in this Order shall prevent disclosure beyond the terms of this Order if either the designating person consents in writing to such disclosure or the Court allows such disclosure upon good cause shown. 6. As used in this Order, “Producing Party” shall refer to any person or entity providing “Produced Information” in connection with this litigation. “Produced Information” may be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” or “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” by any party to this action, or by the non-party providing such “Produced Information,” if the designator reasonably believes that the information meets the standards set forth in Paragraph 2. 7. Information shall be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” in the following manner: a. In the case of documents reduced to paper form or other Produced

Information, the confidentiality designation shall be made by placing the legend “CONFIDENTIAL – SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER” on the document or Produced Information in a manner sufficient to identify the document as entitled to confidential treatment in this action. A Producing Party shall designate documents or other Produced Information as

confidential at or before the time of production. Inadvertent disclosure of Confidential Information, without identifying the same as confidential, shall not be deemed a waiver of confidentiality with regard to similar or related information nor shall it be deemed a waiver of confidentiality with regard to the information inadvertently disclosed if called to the attention of trial counsel for the receiving party within a reasonable period of time after the Producing Party becomes aware of the inadvertent disclosure. Inadvertent production of documents, tangible things, or information subject to the attorney client privilege or work product immunity shall not constitute a waiver of such privilege. After receiving notice from the Producing Party that documents or information subject to the attorney client privilege or work product immunity have been inadvertently

produced, the receiving party shall not review, copy or disseminate such documents or information. The receiving party shall return such documents or information and any copies to the Producing Party immediately. Any information not reduced to documentary or physical form or which cannot be conveniently labeled shall be so designated by the Producing Party by serving a written notification on each receiving party. In addition, a party other than the Producing Party may designate documents as confidential by giving written notice to all parties to this action within thirty (30) days of the date on which, exercising reasonable diligence, that designating party becomes aware of their production. In either case, all parties shall then stamp or otherwise mark the designated documents as confidential with the legend described above. b. Information produced or provided on a computer disk, data tape or other

medium that has not been reduced to paper form may be designated as Confidential Information by informing counsel for the parties to this action in writing that the computer disk, data tape or other medium contains Confidential Information. To the extent practical, such physical medium should also be appropriately labeled as set forth above. The party receiving such Confidential

Information under this Paragraph 7(b) shall then be responsible for appropriately labeling any printed version(s) of said Confidential Information which it creates after receiving the information in electronic format. c. In the case of deposition testimony, the Producing Party or any other party to this action may designate information disclosed during a deposition as “CONFIDENTIAL” either by identifying on the record at the deposition the material that is to be treated as confidential, by marking the portions of the deposition record to be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” within thirty (30) days after receipt of the transcript, or by any other manner stipulated by the parties. When the deponent and the attending parties do not agree to waive the reading, correcting, and

signing of the transcript, all information disclosed during a deposition shall be treated as “CONFIDENTIAL” before the expiration of the 30-day period unless otherwise agreed by the parties and the deposition witness. If any deposition testimony or any document or information used during a deposition is designated as confidential, each page of the deposition record reflecting such material shall be stamped “CONFIDENTIAL SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER”, and the first page of the deposition record shall be stamped in a manner that makes it readily apparent that the deposition record contains Confidential Information. 8. Information disclosed during a deposition shall be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” in the same manner as information designated “CONFIDENTIAL” with the exception that such information shall be stamped “CONFIDENTIAL

– ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY.”

9. Confidential Information may be referred to in discovery, discovery responses, motions, briefs or other papers filed with the Court and may be used in depositions, oral arguments or at trial in this action either as exhibits or as the basis for questions. Confidential Information

shall be filed under seal and shall be processed and retained by the Court in accordance with its rules. All materials kept under seal shall be available to the Court and to counsel for the parties for viewing and/or copying. The provisions of Local Civil Rules 6.1 and 79.1(d), W.D.N.C.

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

Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. v. Mattress Firm, Inc., (W.D.N.C. 2020).

Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. v. Mattress Firm, Inc. (Barnhardt Manufacturing Co. v. Mattress Firm, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Stone v. University of Maryland Medical System Corp.
855 F.2d 178 (Fourth Circuit, 1988)