Dingman v. Fuji Japanese Steakhouse Sushi Inc.

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided February 12, 2021·No. 7:20-cv-04850·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

HEATHER DINGMAN, Case No.: 7:20 cv-4850-NSR

Plaintiff, ‐

- against - STIPULATION AND CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER FUJI JAPANESE STEAKHOUSE SUSHI INC. and ANDY CHEN, individually,

Defendants.

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 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” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder: 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (each, “Producing Party”), which may include a nonparty to this litigation who produces or discloses

Discovery Material either voluntarily or pursuant to a subpoena, may designate as Confidential only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual including but not limited to personal identifiers, financial information, credit card numbers, phone numbers, tax records, pay stubs and payroll records, and employer personnel records; (b) medical records; (c) customer complaints or work-related matters of a sensitive nature that are likely to cause embarrassment to the restaurant or non-party employees, other than any such complaints or matters that are directly related to the

claims and defenses in this matter. Opposing counsel may object to the classification of anything as Confidential under this sub-paragraph at which point Court intervention will be sought to determine if properly classified as Confidential. 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel may designate such portion as “Confidential” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility (or, if the Discovery Material is produced in a form not appropriate for such stamping or marking, by notifying the other Parties in writing at the time of production that the Discovery Material is Confidential; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted. 4. A Producing 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 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 (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,” 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 Producing 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.

5. If at any time before the trial of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it previously produced without limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by so apprising all prior recipients in writing. Thereafter, this Court and all persons subject to this Order will treat such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material as Confidential. 6. Nothing contained in this Order will be construed as: (a) a waiver by a Party or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or protection; (c) a waiver of any proprietary or other rights to or in any Confidential information; (d) a limitation on counsel’s right to render advice to the Party or Parties whom counsel represents in this litigation and, in the course thereof, relying upon any Confidential information; (e) a limitation on a Producing Party’s right to make use of its own Confidential information; or (f) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other evidence. 7. Where a Producing Party has designated Discovery Material as Confidential,

other persons subject to this Order may disclose such information only to the following persons: (a) the Parties to this action, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers; (b) counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, or other assistant that such outside counsel employs and assigns to this matter; (c) outside vendors or service providers (such as copy-service providers and document-management consultants) that counsel hire and assign to this matter, provided such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto; (d) any mediator or arbitrator that the Parties engage in this matter or that this

Court appoints, provided such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto; (e) as to any document, its author, its addressee, and any other person indicated on the face of the document as having received a copy; (f) any witness who counsel for a Party in good faith believes may be called to testify at trial or deposition in this action; (g) any person a Party retains to serve as an expert witness or otherwise provide specialized advice to counsel in connection with this action, provided such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto; (h) stenographers engaged to transcribe depositions the Parties conduct in this action; and

(i) this Court, including any appellate court, its support personnel, and court reporters. 8. Before disclosing any Confidential Discovery Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 7(c), 7(d), 7(f) or 7(g) above, counsel must provide a copy of this Order to such person, who must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto stating that he or she has read this Order and agrees to be bound by its terms. 9. Any Party who objects to any designation of confidentiality may at any time before the trial of this action serve upon counsel for the Producing Party a written notice stating with particularity the grounds of the objection. If the Parties cannot reach agreement promptly, counsel for all affected Parties will address their dispute to this Court.

10.

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

Dingman v. Fuji Japanese Steakhouse Sushi Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Dingman v. Fuji Japanese Steakhouse Sushi Inc. (Dingman v. Fuji Japanese Steakhouse Sushi Inc.) — 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)