ELI NEHEMIAH HERNANDEZ v. JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC.

District Court, W.D. Texas·Decided July 14, 2026·No. 3:26-cv-00085·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION

ELI NEHEMIAH HERNANDEZ, § § Plaintiff, § § v. § EP- 26-cv-00085-LS-RFC § JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL § U.S.A., INC, § § Defendant. §

CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Before the Court is the Joint Motion for Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order, ECF No. 20 [hereinafter “Mot.”]. Based on the parties’ Motion and the record in this matter, the Court finds that disclosure and discovery activity in this action are likely to involve production of confidential, sensitive, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation would be warranted. Accordingly, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter: • to expedite the flow of information; • to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials; • to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential; • to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonably necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial; • to address the handling of confidential materials at the end of the litigation; and • to serve the ends of justice. However, while the jointly submitted Agreed Confidentiality and Protective Order, ECF No. 20-1, conforms with the template deemed appropriate under the current Local Rules, see W.D. Tex. L.R. CV-26(c), App’x H-2, the provisions contained in Section 13 – entitled “Filing Under Seal” – no longer comport with Fifth Circuit sealing precedent. As reiterated by the Fifth Circuit, “the power to seal court records must be used sparingly in light of the public's right to access.” United States v. Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev., 624 F.3d 685, 690 (5th Cir. 2010); see also Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 418 (5th Cir. 2021) (citing Holy Land, 624 F.3d at 690); SEC v. Van Waeyenberghe, 990 F.2d 845, 848 (5th Cir. 1993)). A court must consider

every request to seal on a “case-by case, ‘document-by-document,’ ‘line-by-line’” basis, balancing “the public’s common law right of action against the interests favoring nondisclosure.” Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 419 (collecting cases). Consequently, protective orders such as the one proposed here – which would permit parties to unilaterally decide what information to file under seal, absent any judicial sealing analysis – are improper. Id. at 419–420. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the Motion is GRANTED AS MODIFIED. The Court ORDERS the following: 1. Classified Information “Classified Information” means any information of any type, kind, or character that is designated as “Confidential,” “For Counsel Only,” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by any of the supplying or receiving persons, whether it be a document, information contained in a document, information revealed during discovery, or otherwise. 2. Qualified Persons “Qualified Persons” means: a. For Counsel or Attorneys’ Eyes Only information: i. retained counsel for the parties in this litigation and their respective staff; ii. actual or potential independent experts or consultants (and their administrative or clerical staff) engaged in connection with this litigation (which shall not include the current employees, officers, members, or agents of parties or affiliates of parties) who, prior to any disclosure of Classified Information to such person, have signed a document agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order and have been designated in writing by notice to all counsel;1 iii. this court and its staff and any other tribunal, special master, or dispute resolution officer duly appointed or assigned in connection with this litigation; and iv. litigation vendors, court reporters, video camera operators, translators, and other litigation support personnel.

b. For Confidential information: i. the persons identified in subparagraph 2(a); ii. the party, if a natural person; iii. if the party is an entity, such officers or employees of the party who are actively involved in the prosecution or defense of this case who, prior to any disclosure of Confidential information to such person, have signed a document agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order; iv. actual or potential independent experts or consultants (and their administrative or clerical staff) engaged in connection with this litigation (which shall not include the current employees, officers, members, or agents of parties or affiliates of parties) who, by their receipt of Confidential information, are bound by the terms of this Protective Order; v. jury and trial consultants and their staff and mock jurors who have signed a document agreeing to be bound by the terms of this Protective Order; and vi. any person who was an author, addressee, or intended or authorized recipient of the Confidential information and who agrees to keep the information confidential, provided that such persons may see and use the Confidential information but not retain a copy.

c. Such other person as this court may designate after notice and an opportunity to be heard.

For purposes of subsections (a)(ii), the attorney who retains or designates such persons shall maintain the signed certifications of those persons.

3. Designation Criteria a. Classified Information. A party shall designate as Classified Information only such information that the party in good faith believes in fact is confidential. Information that is generally available to the public, such as public filings, catalogues, advertising materials, and the like, shall not be designated as Classified Information.

Information and documents that may be designated as Classified Information include, but are not limited to, trade secrets, confidential or proprietary financial information, operational data, business plans, and competitive analyses, personnel files, personal information that is protected by law, and other sensitive information that, if not restricted as set forth in this order, may subject the producing or disclosing person to competitive or financial injury or potential legal liability to third parties.

Correspondence and other communications between the parties or with nonparties may be designated as Classified Information if the communication was made with the understanding or reasonable expectation that the information would not become generally available to the public. b. For Counsel or Attorneys Only. The designation “For Counsel Only” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” shall be reserved for information that is believed to be unknown to the opposing party or parties, or any of the employees of a corporate party. For purposes of this order, so designated information includes, but is not limited to, product formula information, design information, nonpublic financial information, pricing information, customer identification data, and certain study methodologies.

c. Ultrasensitive Information. At this point, the parties do not anticipate the need for higher levels of confidentiality as to ultrasensitive documents or information. However, in the event that a court orders that ultrasensitive documents or information be produced, the parties will negotiate and ask the court to enter an ultrasensitive information protocol in advance of production to further protect such information.

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

ELI NEHEMIAH HERNANDEZ v. JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC., (W.D. Tex. 2026).

ELI NEHEMIAH HERNANDEZ v. JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC. (ELI NEHEMIAH HERNANDEZ v. JAPAN TOBACCO INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related