Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided November 14, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-02174·Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JEAN-CLAUDE FRANCHITTI, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 1:21-cv-02174-JMF -against- COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS CORPORATION and COGNIZANT TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS U.S. CORPORATION, Defendants. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER This Stipulated Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (the “Order”) is entered into by and between Plaintiff Jean-Claude Franchitti (“Franchitti” or “Plaintiff”) and Defendants Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and Cognizant Technology Solutions U.S. Corporation (“Defendants” or “Cognizant”) (collectively, the “Parties”). The Parties stipulate and agree that discovery in the above-captioned civil action (the “Action”) will require production of documents and information that one or both of the Parties regards as containing sensitive and non- public business information, financial information, personnel information, personal information, trade secrets, and/or other confidential information. Disclosure of this information to the general public would be prejudicial to the Parties, and litigation over claims of confidentiality would

unduly consume the resources and time of the Court and Parties. Accordingly, the Parties hereby stipulate and agree that the following procedures and provisions shall apply in the Action: I. DEFINITIONS As used in this Order, these terms shall have the following meanings: A. “Material” is defined as documents, records, data, testimony, responses to discovery, or other tangible items, and any other information produced by a Party or Non-Party in discovery in the Action, whether in hard copy or electronic form.

B. “Confidential Material” is defined as Material containing sensitive non-public business information, financial information, personal information (including of Plaintiff), personnel information, trade secrets, and/or other confidential or proprietary commercial, research, or development information, within the meaning of Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Confidential Material may include, inter alia, all sensitive non-public materials containing information related to: financial or business plans, data or projections; proposed plans or strategies; studies or analyses by internal or external experts; financial or tax data; competitive analyses; personal information regarding former and current employees, including regarding employees, officers, directors or partners, their nonpublic contact information, benefits and

compensation information, performance evaluations, complaints, disciplinary history, and other information that, if openly disclosed, might adversely affect or prejudice the privacy interests of such individual, personal information regarding third-Parties; information or documents subject to confidentiality or non-disclosure agreements with third Parties; Company processes, procedures, standards, formulas, and other related information, including Company guidelines, manuals, or software; or other commercially sensitive or proprietary information. C. “Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material” is defined as Confidential Material that contains highly sensitive confidential or proprietary business information (including medical- related information), a trade secret or other commercial or financial information that the Producing Party, in good faith, believes would result in competitive or commercial harm in the market place if the Material were disseminated to persons other than those specifically identified in Paragraph III.C below, and may include (without limitation) confidential or proprietary insurance Company pricing guidelines or formulas, internal renewal policies, philosophies, or pricing material, or other similarly sensitive trade secret or proprietary information.

D. The “Designator” is any Party or Non-Party who designates any Material produced in this Action as “Confidential” or “Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only.” E. The “Producing Party” is any Party or Non-Party that produces Confidential Material or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only Material during the course of discovery in this Action. F. The “Receiving Party” is any Party or Non-Party that receives Confidential Material or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only Material during the course of discovery in this Action. II. DESIGNATION OF MATERIALS AS “CONFIDENTIAL”

A. Any Party or Non-Party may designate Material produced during the course of this Action as Confidential Material or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material if that Party or Non- Party believes in good faith that the Material satisfies the definitions of Confidential Material or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material as set forth in Paragraphs I.B and I.C. B. A Party or Non-Party may designate such Material by marking the word “Confidential” or “Confidential Attorney Eyes Only” on the face of each document and each page so designated at the time it is produced or served, or, in the case of Confidential or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material contained in or on media other than paper, by affixing such a label to the information or media containing the information or by indicating in writing the identify the information by bates number or other precise means of identifying the information as Confidential or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material. C. Any Party may designate Material as Confidential or Attorneys Eyes Only that was received from a Non-Party if the material meets the definitions set forth in Paragraphs I.B and/or I.C. If a Non-Party produces Material during the course of this Action that the producing Non-

Party did not designate as Confidential or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material but that a Party believes in good faith satisfies either of those definitions as set forth in Paragraphs I.B and I.C, the Party may (1) request that the Non-Party designate the Material as Confidential or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material in the manner specified above; or (2) the Party may itself so designate the Material, in which case the Party-Designator shall, within ten (10) business days of notifying counsel, provide counsel for the Parties with new copies of such Material bearing the appropriate “Confidential” or “Confidential Attorney Eyes Only” legend. This designation procedure may apply to Material received from Non-Parties through a subpoena or other means of discovery process. Upon receipt of the copy bearing the legend, counsel for the Parties and all

other persons who have received undesignated copies of the Material shall either return such Material to the Non-Party who originally produced the Materials or destroy all such Materials, copies and other reproductions thereof. The non-designating Party(ies) will have no responsibility or liability for pre-notification dissemination or use of Confidential or Confidential Attorney Eyes Only Material not properly designated at the time of the production. D. Designation may also be by such other means as are agreed to, in writing, by the Designator and the Party seeking disclosure. E. A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of the designation of Material as “Confidential” or “Confidential Attorney Eyes Only” at the time made, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge in this Action. If a Party challenges a designation (the “Objecting Party”) at any time prior to the final pretrial conference in the Action, Counsel for the Objecting Party shall give written notice of the reasons for the objection. i. If any Party elects to challenge a designation of any Discovery Materials as Confidential Discovery Materials pursuant to this Order, that Party must provide at

least ten (10) days’ advance notice to afford the designating Party an opportunity to voluntarily remove such designation.

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

Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation (Franchitti v. Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation) — 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)