Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 31, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-07251·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HEIDI DIAZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, Case No.: 1:22-cv-07251-JMF v. BLOOMBERG, L.P., Defendant. STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER FOR THE PRODUCTION AND EXCHANGE OF CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION 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 the pre-trial phase of this action: Discovery in this Litigation (as defined herein) is likely to involve the production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from disclosure, and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this Litigation, may be warranted. Plaintiff Heidi Diaz and any other potential future opt-ins and/or plaintiffs in the Litigation (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Bloomberg L.P. (“Bloomberg”), stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulation And Order For The Production And Exchange of Confidential Information (the “Stipulation”). WHEREAS, the Court approves the following terms, and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. This Stipulation is being entered into to facilitate the production, exchange, and discovery of documents and information that merit confidential treatment. 2. As used herein: (a) “Litigation” shall mean the lawsuit captioned Diaz v. Bloomberg L.P., Case No. 1:22-cv-07251-JMF, that is currently pending in the United States District Court for the

Southern District of New York. (b) “Confidential Information” shall mean all information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that contain personal information of current and/or former employees, trade secrets, proprietary business information, sensitive information, or other information that, in the good faith judgment of the party designating the material as confidential, if disclosed, would be detrimental to the conduct of that party’s business or the business of any of that party’s customers or clients. (c) “Disclosure or Discovery Material” shall mean all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including,

among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or in connection with discovery in this matter. (d) “Highly Confidential Information–Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall mean extremely sensitive Confidential Information (such as medical information, bank account information, social security numbers (to the extent not redacted), and trade secrets) that, in the good faith judgment of the party designating the material as Highly Confidential Information– Attorneys’ Eyes Only, if disclosed to another party or non-party, would create a substantial risk of serious harm that could not be avoided by less restrictive means. (e) “Producing Party” shall mean the parties to this Litigation or any third parties producing “Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information–Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or the party asserting the confidentiality designation, as the case may be. (f) “Receiving Party” shall mean the party to this Litigation or any non-party receiving or possessing “Confidential Information” or “Highly Confidential Information–

Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 3. Designation of Confidential Information: The designating party must designate Disclosure or Discovery Material that the party reasonably believes should be protected from disclosure as Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information–Attorneys’ Eyes Only. Designation in conformity with this Stipulation may be made as follows: (a) For information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions), by affixing, at a minimum, the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY,” to the first page of each document that contains protected material or by any other reasonable means of giving

notice of the party’s intent to claim protected status of the document in question. (b) For deposition testimony or exhibits offered in a deposition, by notifying opposing counsel on the record during, or at the conclusion of, the deposition that the information provided is considered Confidential or Highly Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only and that the transcript (or portions thereof) shall be subject to the provisions of this Stipulation; in addition, designation may be made by notifying all counsel in writing of those portions to be treated as such at any time up to twenty (20) days after the final transcript is received by counsel for the party making the designation. Prior to the expiration of such twenty (20) day period, or until a designation is made by counsel, if such a designation is made in a shorter period of time, all deposition testimony shall be treated as Confidential Information unless counsel indicates that it shall be treated as Highly Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only during this period. (c) For information produced in other forms, by affixing in a prominent place on the exterior of the container or containers in which the information is stored the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL–ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or by any

other reasonable means of providing notice of the designations. 4. Procedure for Raising Disagreement With Designation: In the event a party challenges another party’s designation of Confidential Information or Highly Confidential Information–Attorneys’ Eyes Only, the party wishing to challenge the designation must confer in good faith with the opposing party, in person or by telephone, in an effort to resolve the dispute, pursuant to Local Rule 37.2, with modifications as described in Rule 3(E) of Judge Jesse M. Furman’s Individual Rules & Practices in Civil Cases (“Individual Practices”). If the parties’ dispute cannot be resolved by the meet-and-confer process, the party wishing to challenge the designation shall promptly file on the Electronic Case Filing (“ECF”) system a letter-motion to the

Court, no longer than three (3) pages, explaining the nature of the dispute and requesting an informal conference. Such a letter must include a representation that the meet-and-confer process occurred and was unsuccessful. Any opposition to a letter-motion seeking relief shall be filed as a letter, not to exceed three (3) pages, within three (3) business days of the filing of the original letter-motion. The documents or information that are the subject of the Confidential or Highly Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation shall remain treated as such, under the protection of this Stipulation, pending the Court’s decision. Acceptance by the Receiving Party of material designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only shall not constitute a concession that any such discovery material is appropriately designated. All discovery material designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only by a Producing Party will be treated as Confidential or Highly Confidential–Attorneys’ Eyes Only, unless such designation is changed by mutual agreement of the parties or Court order. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the Producing Party shall bear the burden of demonstrating that the discovery material is properly designated as Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys’

Eyes Only. 5. Seeking Relief from Designation: This Confidentiality Order shall not prevent any party from applying to the Court for relief therefrom.

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

Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P. (Diaz v. Bloomberg, L.P.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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