Hildreth Real Estate Advisors LLC v. Galvis

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 28, 2024·No. 1:23-cv-09372·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK REAL ESTATE ADVISORS _ } LLC, Plaintiff, : CONFIDENTIALITY : AGREEMENT AND ~against- : PROTECTIVE ORDER FELIPE GALVIS and FORTITUDE 3 Case No.: 1:23-cv-09372-DEH VENTURES III LLC, Defendants. 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 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

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

Party”) may designate as Confidential only the portion of such material that it

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) trade secrets or sensitive business information not previously disclosed to the general public, other than through unauthorized disclosure,

(e) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or (f) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status. 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel may designate such as “Confidential” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” the

for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential

redacted 4. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or

of deposition transcripts as Confidential Discovery Material either by: (a) indicating

the record during the deposition that a question calls for Confidential information, in which

the reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony in a separate volume and

it as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order;” or (b) notifying the

and all Parties or a Party’s counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after a

has concluded, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be “Confidential,” in which case all Parties or a Party’s counsel receiving the 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 Party’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 should have designated as Confidential some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it produced without limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by apprising all prior recipients in writing. Thereafter, this Court and all persons subject to this 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 or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other

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 a Party or their counsel in good faith believes may be called to testify at trial or deposition in this action, provided 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 or a Party 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 thie antinn: and

(i) this Court, including any appellate court, its support personnel, and court reporters.

8. Before disclosing any Confidential Discovery Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 7(d), 7(f), 7(g) or 7(h) above, counsel or the Party must provide a copy of this Order to such person, who must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit hereto stating that he or she has read this Order and agrees to be bound by its terms. Said counsel or Party must retain each signed Non-Disclosure Agreement, hold it in escrow, and produce it to opposing counsel or Party either before such person is permitted to testify (at deposition or trial) or at the conclusion of the case, whichever comes first. 9. In accordance with Rule 5 of this Court’s Individual Practices, any Party filing documents under seal must simultaneously file with the Court a letter brief and supporting declaration justifying — on a particularized basis — the continued sealing of such documents. The Parties should be aware that the Court will unseal documents if it is unable to make “specific, on the record findings . .. demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). 10. The Court also retains discretion whether to afford confidential treatment to any Discovery Material designated as Confidential and submitted to the Court in connection with any motion, application, or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court.

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)