Hayden v. International Business Machines Corporation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided December 1, 2021·No. 7:21-cv-02485·Unknown

Opinion

Case fizZ1l-CV-Uz400-VB VOoOCcumen Zy-L Prneag ttisvicl raye 1 Ul lo

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SBC SONY SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK | BOCUMENT □ ELECTRONICALLY □□□□□□ \ euOCH GERALD HAYDEN, parent [77] □□ Plaintiff, V. Case No. 7:21-CV-02485-VB INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION, PABLO SUAREZ and SHANKER RAMAMURTHY, Defendants. . PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEREAS, Plaintiff Gerald Hayden (“Plaintiff”) and Defendants International Business Machines Corporation (“IBM”), Pablo Suarez and Shanker Ramamurthy (collectively, ‘Defendants”), hereafter referred to as “the Parties” (the dispute referred to herein being the “Action”), believe that certain information that is or will be encompassed by discovery demands by the Parties involves the production or disclosure of confidential business information or other proprietary information; WHEREAS, the Parties seek a protective order limiting disclosure thereof in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c): THEREFORE, it is hereby stipulated among the Parties and ORDERED that: 1, This Order is being entered into to facilitate the production, exchange, and discovery of documents and information that may merit confidential treatment. 2. Purpose and Limitations: Disclosure and discovery in this Action are likely to involve the production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this

Case 7:21-cv-02485-VB Document 29-1 Filed d1/s0/21 Frage - orlo

litigation may be warranted. The Parties acknowledge that this Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. The Parties further acknowledge that this Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; the Honorable Judge Vincent L. Briccetti’s Individual Rules of Practice set forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the Court to file material under seal. 3. As used herein: (a) “Confidential Information” shall mean all information (regardless of how it is generated, stored or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). (b) “Disclosure or Discovery Material” shall mean all items or information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained (including, among other things, testimony, transcripts, and tangible things), that are produced or generated in disclosures or responses to discovery in this matter. (c) “Producing Party” shall mean the parties to this Action or any third parties producing “Confidential Information” or the party asserting the confidentiality designation, as the case may be. (d) “Receiving Party” shall mean the party to this Action or any non-party receiving “Confidential Information.” 4. Scope: The protections conferred by this Order cover not only Confidential Information (as defined above), but also (1) any information copied or extracted from Confidential

-2-

Case 7:21-cv-02485-VB Document 29-1 Filed 11/s0/21 Page

Information; (2) all copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations of Confidential Information; and (3) any testimony, conversations, or presentations by Parties and their counsel that might reveal Confidential Information. However, the protections conferred by this Order do not cover the following information: (a) any information that is in the public domain at the time of disclosure to a Receiving Party or becomes part of the public domain after its disclosure to a Receiving Party as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Order, including becoming part of the public record through trial or otherwise; and (b) any information known to the Receiving Party prior to the disclosure or obtained by the Receiving Party after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no obligation of confidentiality to the Designating Party. Any use of confidential information at trial shall be governed by a separate agreement or order. 5. Exercise of Restraint and Care in Designating Material as Confidential: Each Party or Non-Party that designates information or items for protection under this Order must take care to limit any such designation to specific material that qualifies under the appropriate standards. To the extent it is practical to do so, the Designating Party must designate for protection only those parts of material, documents, items, or written communications that qualify — so that other portions of the material, documents, items or communications for which protection is not warranted are not swept unjustifiably within the ambit of this Order. Mass, indiscriminate, or routinized designations are prohibited. Designations that are shown to be clearly unjustified or that have been made for

an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or retard the case development process or to impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on other parties) may expose the Designating Party to sanctions. If it comes to a Designating Party’s attention that information or items that it designated for protection do not qualify for protection at all or do not qualify for the level of protection initially

-3-

Case 7:21-cv-02460-VB Document cy-L Filed Llistict rage + Ol LO

asserted, that Designating Party must promptly notify all other parties that it is withdrawing the mistaken designation. 6. Designation of Confidential Information: Any party may designate Disclosure or Discovery Material that the party reasonably believes should be subject to the terms of this Order as Confidential Information (“Designated Material”). Designation in conformity with this Order may be made as follows: (a) For information in documentary form (e.g., paper or electronic documents, but excluding transcripts of depositions), by affixing, at a minimum, the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” to the first page of each document that contains protected material or by any other reasonable means of giving notice of the party’s intent to claim protected status of the document in question. (b) For deposition testimony or exhibits offered in a deposition, by notifying opposing counsel on the record during, or at the conclusion of, the deposition that the information provided is considered Confidential and that the transcript (or portions thereof) shall be subject to the provisions of this Order; in addition, designation may be made by notifying all counsel in writing of those portions to be treated as such at any time up to thirty (30) days after the final transcript is received by counsel for the party making the designation. Prior to the expiration of such thirty (30) day period, or until a designation is made by counsel, if such a designation is made in a shorter period of time, all deposition testimony shall be treated as Confidential during this period. (c) For information produced in other forms, by affixing in a prominent place on the exterior of the container or containers in which the information is stored the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or by any other reasonable means of providing notice of the designations.

-4-

Case 7:21-cv-02485-VB Document 29-1 Filed 13/30/21 Page 9 OF i6

7. Challenge Procedure for Raising Disagreement With Designation as Confidential Information: (a) Timing of Challenges: Any Party may challenge a designation of confidentiality at any time.

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

Hayden v. International Business Machines Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Hayden v. International Business Machines Corporation (Hayden v. International Business Machines 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)