Barron v. micromobility.com Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 21, 2025
Docket1:20-cv-04703
StatusUnknown

This text of Barron v. micromobility.com Inc. (Barron v. micromobility.com 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
Barron v. micromobility.com Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK RYANBARRON, etal, Plaintiffs, 1:20-cv-04703(PKC) ~ against - ; MICROMOBILITY.COM INC.,, et al., oe 4

STIPULATED prorosio! CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER WHEREAS Plaintiffs Ryan Barron et al. ("Plaintiffs"), and Defendants micromobility.com Inc, Salvatore Palella, Lorenzo Pellegrino, Giulio Profumo, Jonathan Hannestad and Justin Giuliano, Skrill USA Inc., and Saeed Al Darmaki ("Defendants"), parties to the above referenced litigation (collectively, the "Parties," and individually, a "Party"), consider certain information and documents in their possession to be confidential and proprietary including, infer alia, sensitive financial, commercial, business and personal information, and expect that such confidential and proprietary information 1s or will be encompassed by discovery demands made to each other, WHEREAS the Parties therefore desire that a protective order limiting the use, access to, and disclosure of such information and documents be entered, WHEREAS the Parties, through their undersigned counsel, have stipulated to the entry of this Protective Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), and the Court having reviewed the terms of the same, and good cause has been shown for the entry of this Protective Order, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the production and use of information and documents produced or made available in this matter shall proceed in accordance with the following terms:

1. Confidential Information Any Party to this litigation shall have the right to designate as "Confidential" and subject to this Protective Order any information, document, or thing (including, without limitation, paper or electronic documents, written discovery responses, deposition testimony or exhibits), or portion of any document or thing, that contains trade secret information or any other information that the party producing (the "Producing Party") believes in good faith to be entitled to protection under Rule 26(c)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure including, inter alia, sensitive financial, commercial, business and personal information ("Confidential Information"). 2. Designation of information as Confidential a. A person designates information in a document or thing as Confidential by clearly and prominently marking it on its face as "CONFIDENTIAL". A Party may make documents or things containing Confidential Information available for inspection and copying without marking them as confidential without forfeiting a claim of confidentiality, so long as the Producing Party causes copies of the documents or things to be marked as Confidential before providing them to the recipient. b. A person designates information in deposition testimony as Confidential by stating on the record at the deposition that the information is Confidential or by advising the opposing party and the stenographer and videographer in writing, within thirty days after receipt of the deposition transcript, that the information is Confidential. Unless otherwise agreed to by the Parties, all deposition testimony shall be deemed Confidential until thirty days after receipt of the deposition transcript by the Party being deposed. c, A person's failure to designate a document, thing, or testimony as Confidential does not constitute forfeiture of a claim of confidentiality as to any other document, thing, or testimony. □

d. A person who has designated information as Confidential may withdraw the designation by written notification to all Parties in the case. €, Any Party to whom information designated Confidential is produced may object at any time during the pendency of this action to such designation. Moreover, compliance with this Order shall not be construed in any way as an admission or agreement by any Party that the designated disclosure constitutes or contains any trade secret or confidential information of any other Party or witness. No Party is obliged to challenge the designation of any material at the time of receipt, disclosure, or designation thereof, and a failure to challenge the propriety of any Confidential designation by any other Party or witness shall not constitute a waiver or in any way preclude a subsequent challenge in this or any other action to the propriety of such designations. f. In the event that a Party or nonparty to this lawsuit raises an objection to a Producing Party's Confidential designation, such objection shall be made in writing to the Producing Party. The Parties shall confer in good faith in an effort to resolve any dispute concerning such designation. The Producing Party bears the burden of proof concerning confidentiality by a preponderance of the evidence. If the objection cannot be resolved by agreement within ten (10) calendar days of the date of receipt of the objection, the objecting party may move the Court for an order compelling redesignation of the material in question. Any such motion must be filed within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of receipt of the objection, unless otherwise agreed to by the objecting Party and the Producing Party or directed by the Court, and any opposition to such motion shall be filed within ten (10) calendar days of the service of such motion, unless otherwise agreed to by the objecting party that the information is properly designated as Confidential. The information shall remain subject to the Producing Patty's Confidential designation until the Court rules on the dispute. A party's failure to contest a designation of information as Confidential is not an admission that the information was properly designated as such.

3. Use and Disclosure of Confidential Information a. Confidential Information shall be used exclusively and only for purposes of this litigation, subject to the restrictions of this order. b. Absent written permission from the Producing Party or further order by the Court, the recipient may not disclose Confidential Information to any person other than the following: (i) directly to the Plaintiffs, Defendants, and micromobility.com Inc or Skrill USA Inc.’s employees who are involved in this litigation or who have information relating thereto; (ii) a party's outside counsel of record in this action, including necessary paralegal, secretarial and clerical personnel assisting such counsel (collectively, "Outside Litigation Counsel"); (iii) a stenographer and videographer recording testimony concerning the information; (iv) subject to the provisions of paragraph 3(b) of this order, experts and consultants and their staff whom a party employs for purposes of this litigation only; (v) outside vendors or service providers (such as copy-service providers and document-management consultants, graphic production services or other litigation support services) that have been hired to assist in this matter; and (vi) the Court and personnel assisting the Court. c. A Party may not disclose Confidential Information to an expert or consultant pursuant to paragraph 3(b) of this Order until after the expert or consultant has signed an undertaking in the form of Appendix 1 to this Order. d. Notwithstanding paragraph 3(b), a Party may disclose Confidential Information to: (i) any author of the Producing Party who was an author or recipient of the Confidential Information; (ii) any person, no longer affiliated with the Producing Party, who authored the information in whole or in part and executes an undertaking in the form of Appendix 1 of this Order; and (iii) any person who legally received the information before this case was filed.

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)
Barron v. micromobility.com Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barron-v-micromobilitycom-inc-nysd-2025.