In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 11, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-10667·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Master Docket No.: 1:22-cv-10667-JMF Liability Litigation

This Document Relates to: All Actions

STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER WHEREAS, Rule 7(A) of this Court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases governs “Redactions Not Requiring Court Approval” and this Court’s Rule 7(B) governs “Redactions and Sealed Filings Requiring Court Approval”; WHEREAS, the parties in the above-captioned consolidated litigation (collectively the “Parties”1 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 certain additional nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that is not covered by the materials defined in the Court’s Individual Rule that the parties or non-parties may need to disclose and/or file 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,

1The “Parties” are plaintiffs and defendants in the following actions: Ostenfeld, et al. v. The Laundress, LLC, 22-CV-10667 (JMF); Sites v. Unilever United States, Inc., et al., 23-CV-4920 (JMF); Safran v. The Laundress, LLC, et al., 24-CV-865 (JMF); Nixon v. The Laundress, LLC, et al., 24-CV-1630 (JMF); and Macha v. The Laundress, LLC, No. 1:24-cv-2108 (JMF). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order— including the Parties to this action (including their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns), their representatives, agents, experts and consultants, all non- 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 Party or nonparty subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits. 2. The Party or nonparty producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing Party”) may designate as “Confidential” such material or the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes is entitled to confidential treatment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G), or is protected under applicable laws or regulations, including privacy or data protection laws, or the disclosure of which would be detrimental to the conduct of that Party’s

business or the business of any of the Party’s customers or clients. These may include, without limitation, documents produced in the case, during formal discovery or otherwise; information of nonparties which the Producing Party is under an obligation to maintain in confidence; initial disclosures; answers to interrogatories and responses to requests for admission or other discovery requests; deposition or hearing transcripts; affidavits; exhibits; experts’ reports; memoranda of law; and tangible things or objects that are appropriately designated confidential pursuant to this Discovery Confidentiality Order. The information contained therein and all copies, abstracts, excerpts, analyses, notes or other writings that contain, reflect, reveal or otherwise disclose such confidential information shall also be deemed “Confidential.” For the purposes of the case, information originally designated as “Confidential” shall not retain that status after any ruling by the Court denying such status to it. Parties and/or nonparties subject to this Order shall act in good faith in designating information as “Confidential,” which in good faith believe 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) non-public material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; (c) non-public business plans, proprietary business information, product-development information, or marketing plans; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding

any individual; (e) any non-public information that a party in good faith determines to be confidential information, trade secrets, or competitively or commercially sensitive information, and nonpublic personal information as defined in applicable data privacy/data protection laws; or (f) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status or the Producing Party believes in good faith warrants Confidential designation under this Order. 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 the receipt of the rough transcript of the deposition, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript (and if applicable, exhibits) 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 (and if applicable, exhibits) in their possession or under their control as directed by the Producing Party or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following receipt of the rough transcript, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript and corresponding exhibits as if it had been designated Confidential. 5. The inadvertent failure by a Producing Party to designate material with the correct confidentiality designation shall not waive any such designation. 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, and promptly after providing such notice, producing re-labeled copies of the material to each Receiving Party reflecting the change in designation. Thereafter, this Court and all persons subject to this Order will treat such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material as Confidential and shall undertake their

best efforts to correct any disclosure of such information contrary to the redesignation, including retrieving any documents from persons not qualified to receive them under the redesignation and informing such persons that they should not further use or disseminate the information thereon. 6.

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

In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation (In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation) — 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)