Doe (G.N.C.) v. Uniquest Delaware, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 18, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-07980
StatusUnknown

This text of Doe (G.N.C.) v. Uniquest Delaware, LLC (Doe (G.N.C.) v. Uniquest Delaware, 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
Doe (G.N.C.) v. Uniquest Delaware, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

Jane Doe (G.N.C.), an individual

Plaintiff CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23-cv-07980-PKC v.

Uniquest Delaware LLC, Brookwood Hospitality LLC, Embassy Suites Franchise LLC, Hilton Franchise Holding LLC, Park Hotels & Resorts, Inc., Hilton Domestic Operating Company Inc., PROTECTIVE ORDER Hilton Worldwide Holdings Inc., Vornado Realty Trust, Vornado Realty L.P., 401 Hotel L.P., 401 Hotel General Partner LLC, 401 Hotel TRS, Inc., 401 Hotel TRS, LLC, and 401 Hotel Management Company LLC

Defendants.

P. KEVIN CASTEL, United States District Judge:

WHEREAS, all of the parties to this action (collectively the “Parties” and 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 certain nonpublic and confidential material that will be exchanged pursuant to and during the course of discovery in this case;

WHEREAS, Plaintiff represents that she has not previously disclosed in the public media her identity in relation to her trafficking allegations and to the best of her recollection, Plaintiff has not disclosed her identity in relation to her trafficking allegations in a publicly available social media post and further represents that, consistent with her privacy concerns, it is her intent not to disclose her identity or image in relation to the status of this matter or the underlying allegations on social media or with any media outlet while the case is pending;

WHEREAS, the protections provided to Plaintiff in Paragraph 12 of this Protective Order will become inapplicable if Plaintiff discloses her identity or image in relation to the status of this matter or the underlying allegations on social media or with any media outlet while the case is pending;

WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms;

WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords only extends to the limited information or items that are entitled, under the applicable legal principles, to confidential treatment; WHEREAS, the Parties further acknowledge that this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and

WHEREAS, in light of these acknowledgements, and based on the representations of the Parties that discovery in this case will involve confidential documents or information the public disclosure of which will cause harm to the producing person and/or third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, and to protect against injury caused by dissemination of confidential documents and information, this Court finds good cause for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including without limitation the parties to this action, their representatives, agents, experts and consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Protective Order—shall adhere to the following terms:

1. Any person subject to this Protective Order who receives from any other person subject to this Protective Order any “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed pursuant to and in course of discovery in this action) that is designated as “Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Plaintiff’s True Identity” (collectively “Confidential Discovery Material”) pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order shall not disclose such Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder.

2. The person producing any given Discovery Material may designate as Confidential only such portion of such material the public disclosure of which is either restricted by law or will cause harm to the business, commercial, financial or personal interests of the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed and that consists of:

(a) previously nondisclosed 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 nondisclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non- public company;

(c) previously nondisclosed 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 hereinafter given confidential status by the Court.

3. A Party producing Confidential Discovery Material may designate such material as Attorneys’ Eyes Only if such Party reasonably believes the material to constitute, reflect, disclose, or contain trade secret or proprietary information that the Party has maintained as non-public or confidential and to be so competitively sensitive that it could suffer competitive harm if such information was disclosed. Materials warranting an Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation will include, but are not limited to, documents and information reflecting or relating to the franchisor defendants’ proprietary franchise systems, including applicable system and/or brand standards and financial terms of franchise relationships. For avoidance of doubt, references to Confidential Discovery Material herein include any information designated as Attorneys’ Eyes Only by a Party.

4. The Parties producing Confidential Discovery Material may designate such materials as “Plaintiff’s True Identity” if the materials contain Plaintiff’s name, alias names used at any time, Plaintiff’s date of birth, or other information that could be used to identify Plaintiff. The Plaintiff may use a pseudonym throughout the pre-trial course of these proceedings. The Parties reserve the right to reassess Plaintiff’s right to proceed pseudonymously at trial.

5. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the producing person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion as “Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Plaintiff’s True Identity” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential,” “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” or “Plaintiff’s True Identity” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted.

6.

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)
Doe (G.N.C.) v. Uniquest Delaware, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-gnc-v-uniquest-delaware-llc-nysd-2024.