Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 29, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-09372·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HILDRETH REAL ESTATE ADVISORS LLC, Plaintiff, 23-CV-9372 (DEH) v. ORDER FELIPE GALVIS, Defendant.

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge: On May 29, 2024, the Court held a conference to discuss Plaintiff’s proposed Confidentiality Stipulation and Order. See ECF Nos. 34, 34-1. For the reasons discussed at the conference, it is hereby ORDERED: By June 5, 2024, the parties shall meet and confer in good faith to consider the Model Confidentiality Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order, attached to this Order, which is also available on the Court’s website: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/model-confidentiality-stipulation-and- proposed-protective-order-1. The parties shall also consider whether an extension for discovery is necessary, and if so, how many additional days are necessary. By June 7, 2024, the parties shall file a joint status letter, informing the Court whether parties have reached an agreement as to the Model Confidentiality Stipulation and Proposed Protective Order. In the letter, the parties may also submit a joint discovery extension request. If the parties do not come to an agreement regarding the Model Confidentiality Stipulation and Proposed, Plaintiff may file a letter-motion seeking relief. If the parties do not come to an agreement regarding a discovery extension, the joint status letter shall set forth the parties respective positions as to an extension of discovery. Furthermore, Defendant Galvis may consider the Court’s pro se resources, which are available at: https://www.nysd.uscourts.gov/prose. Pro se Defendant may receive court orders by email by completing the following form: https://nysd.uscourts.gov/forms/consent-electronic-service- pro-se-cases. Plaintiff shall serve Defendant via overnight courier with a copy of this Order within one business day and file proof of service on the docket.

SO ORDERED. Dated: May 29, 2024 New York, New York

DALE E. HO United States District Judge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

STIPULATED Plaintiff(s), CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND v. PROTECTIVE ORDER

Civ. _ (DEH) Defendant(s).

DALE E. HO, United States District Judge:

WHEREAS, all 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 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,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person 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, all third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order — will adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: 1. With respect to “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed in the course of discovery in this action) that a person has designated as “Confidential” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential 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 that it

reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) previously non-disclosed 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 non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; (c) previously non-disclosed 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 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 will bind the transcript of the designated testimony in a separate volume and mark it

as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order;” or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after a deposition has concluded, 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 period following a deposition, 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, 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 document-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 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, provided such person has first

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

Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis (Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis) — 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)