Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2021
Docket1:20-cv-09056
StatusUnknown

This text of Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC (Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC) 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
Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Opinion

USDC SDNY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DOCUMENT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 3/18/ 2021 ALEXA BATES, EMINA ABDAGIC, GABRIELLA AGUILERA, YAZMIN ALI, TERRA ANGLIN, ASHLEY ARACENA, ROBYN ARLAN, LA CANADA ASUNCION, TRACI BATES, Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-09056-GHW GEORGEANN BENEDICT, SHENISHA BOOTH, ELIZABETH BRUSS, LUCY ANN BURKE, STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY CHRISTINA CALA, YENNIFER CAMPOS, SUSAN AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE CHEYNE, MOLLY CLARK, CHLOE CORNELL, ORDER KIMBERLY COUTURE, DEAN DAMON, ESTHER EPSTEIN, MARIANA GOES, KIM GRAHAM, ROSEANNA GREGA, WENDY GREGORY, DIANA HASROUNI, NATASHA HOBSON, DONNA HUGHES, GIANNA IMBRONONE, NATALIE KIKKENBORG, RHONDA KOEHLER, KRISTINA LANE, JEANNE LASHMETT, JULIA LEHNEN, VICKIE LEWIS, JENNIFER LONGBINE, FELICIA MONTANO, NARAYANA MONTUFAR, MARIA GUADALUPE MORA, NICOLE MUSCARELLA, GIGI OLIVER, ELIANA PALMA, KRISTEN PEDLEY, CHRISTINA PIERRE, MICHELLE PHARES, LAUREN RACUSIN, SARAH RASHID, EMMANUEL REGISTER, MARITZA RIVERA, CARMEN ROSA, GINA RYAN, ANNYOCELI SANTIAGO, KAALAN SCHAEFFER, JULIANA STANSFIELD, CANDACE STIMSON, MARYAM TEHRANIE, SUZANNE TILLOTSON, MEGAN TRAMA, JEANETTE TRAVIS, STELLA W ARDA, SHIRLEY WEISS, JENNIFER WHITCOMB, JILLIE WILLIAMS, AMANDA WILSON, Plaintiffs, -against- DEVA CONCEPTS, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business as Deva Curl (Doing Business In New York) Defendant. GREGORY H. WOODS, District Judge: WHEREAS, all of the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties” and each 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 that good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties to this action, their respective officers,

agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, any other person in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, and all other persons with actual 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 in the course of discovery in this action) that a person has designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such material (the “Confidential Discovery Material”) to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder:

2. The Party or person producing, disclosing, or designating Discovery Material (“Designating 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 (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, or marketing plans; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or (e) any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. 3. The Designating Party may designate as “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” only the portion of such Discovery Material that meets the criteria of Para. 2 and it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of trade secrets, proprietary information, or competitively sensitive business information, the disclosure of which is highly

likely to cause significant harm to the Designating Party. 4. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Designating Party or its counsel may designate such portion as “Confidential” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted; and (c) to the extent that it would be impractical to visibly mark Discovery Material with the word

“Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” such Discovery Material may also be designated in other practical ways (e.g., in the case of the production of native Excel spreadsheets, labeling the file as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – AEO” and/or communicating the designation in contemporaneous correspondence). 5. A Designating Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or

portions of deposition transcripts as Confidential Discovery Material either by: (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” information, in which case the reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony in a separate volume and mark it as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information Governed by Protective Order” or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after a deposition has concluded, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” in which case all counsel receiving the transcript will be responsible for marking the copies of the designated transcript in their possession or under their control as

directed by the Designating Party or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” as applicable. 6. If at any time before the termination of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it previously produced without such limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by notifying all Parties in writing. Thereafter, all persons subject to this Order will treat such designated portion(s) of

the Discovery Material as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” as applicable. In addition, the Designating Party shall provide each other Party with replacement versions of such Discovery Material that bears the “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential - Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation within two business days of providing such notice. 7. If at any time before termination of this action a receiving Party realizes

that some portion(s) of Discovery Material should be designated as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” the receiving Party may request in writing that the Discovery Material be treated with such designation. 8. If a Designating Party makes a claim of inadvertent disclosure, the receiving Party shall, within two business days, return or destroy all copies of the inadvertently disclosed Discovery Material and certify in writing that all such information has been returned or destroyed. 9.

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)
Bates v. Dev A Concepts, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bates-v-dev-a-concepts-llc-nysd-2021.