Filho v. OTG Management, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 27, 2021·No. 1:19-cv-08287·Unknown

Opinion

DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DATE FILED: 9/27/2021 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DAFINIS FILHO, RAQUEL ERNEST and Civil Action No. 19-cv-08287 CHANTEL LYNCH on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, STIPULATED Plaintiffs, CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER -against- OTG MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant. SARAH NETBURN, United States Magistrate Judge. WHEREAS, Plaintiffs, Opt-in Plaintiffs, and Defendant 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 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 good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action; and IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all persons subject to this Order—including, without limitation, the Parties to this action (including their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns), their representatives, agents, experts and consultants, and all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual notice of this Order—will adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: 1. With respect to “Discovery Material” (Le., information of any kind produced or disclosed in the course of discovery in this action) that a person has designated as

“Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits. 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing Party”) may designate as “Confidential” only the portion of such material the public

disclosure of which is either restricted by law or which the person producing reasonably believes in good faith 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 used. Such Discovery Material includes, but is not limited to: (a) previously non-disclosed financial information (including without limitation reports reflecting customer tips, financial data regarding sales and profitability and internal payroll records that are not distributed to employees and are kept for internal business strategy purposes); (b) previously non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company;

(c) previously non-disclosed business plans, strategies, and policies; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual (including personnel files and tax documents); or (e) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status. 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; 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 shall mark that page of the deposition as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order;” or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after counsel’s receipt of the deposition transcript, 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 review period, 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, unless challenged by the non-Producing Party, 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; or (c) 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 management consultants) that counsel hire and assign to this matter; (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 authored or 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 regarding the content of the Confidential and/or AEO information, provided counsel for the party

seeking testimony regarding the content of the Confidential and/or AEO information confirms that such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto; (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. Any Party shall have the right to designate as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and subject to this Order any information, document, or thing, or portion of any document or thing that

contains highly sensitive business or personal information, the disclosure of which is highly likely to cause significant harm to an individual or to the business or competitive position of the designating party. Any Party who is covered by this Order, who produces or discloses any Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material, including without limitation any information, document, thing, interrogatory answer, admission, pleading, or testimony, shall mark the same with the foregoing or similar legend: “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY” or “ATTORNEYS’ EYES ONLY — SUBJECT TO CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER” (hereinafter “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”). 9.

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

Filho v. OTG Management, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Filho v. OTG Management, LLC (Filho v. OTG Management, LLC) — 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)