In re Peabody Energy Corp. Securities Litigation

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 15, 2022·No. 1:20-cv-08024·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE PEABODY ENERGY COPR. No. 1:20-cv-08024-PKC SECURITIES LITIGATION

STIPULATION AND [PRORO i CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by and among the Parties hereto (defined below), through their undersigned counsel, that the following provisions of this Stipulation and Protective Order (the “Order”) govern disclosure and use by the Parties of all Documents (defined below), including but not limited to electronically stored information (“ESI”) which shall also be subject to a separate agreement for method of production, testimony, exhibits, interrogatory answers, responses to requests to admit, and any other materials and information produced or provided by or on behalf of a Party or non-party pursuant to any formal or informal request in the course of discovery in the above-captioned Action (“Discovery Material’). 1. General Definitions, For purposes of this Order, the following terms are defined as follows: (a) “Confidential Discovery Material” shall mean Discovery Material that contains non-public information, regardless of the medium or manner in which it is generated, stored, or maintained, that (a) has been designated by a Party or non-party as “Confidential” in accordance with this Order; and (b) is maimtained as confidential in the ordinary course of business, and the Designating Party believes in good faith that such Discovery Material contains ot reflects nonpublic personal, financial, proprietary, customer, or client information, commercially sensitive information, trade secrets, product research or development, or

information, the disclosure of which could reasonably cause harm to the Designating Party if disclosed to its competitors. Confidential Discovery Material shall not include: (i) final versions of advertising materials; (ii) materials that on their face show that they have been published to the general public; or (iii) information that, after production, becomes public other than by an act or omission by a Receiving Party (defined below). (b) “Confidential Information” shall mean Confidential Discovery Material, information derived therefrom, or any papers containing or revealing such information. (c) “Defendants” shall refer to Peabody Energy Corporation (“Peabody”), Glenn L. Kellow, and Amy B. Schwetz. (d) “Designating Party” shall mean the Party or non-party designating Discovery Material as “Confidential.” (e) “Disputing Party” shall mean the Party disputing the “Confidential” designation of Discovery Material. (f) “Document” shall mean and include, without limitation, all written material, ESI, and other tangible items produced in any format (e.g., hard-copy, electronic, digital, etc.) in any medium (e.g., hardcopy, videotape, CD, DVD, flash drive, hard drive, etc.) defined as broadly as permitted under FED. R. Crv.P. 34. (g) “Party” or “Parties” shall refer to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. (h) “Plaintiff” shall refer to Lead Plaintiff Oregon Public Employees Retirement Fund. (i) “Producing Party” shall mean the Party or non-party producing Discovery Material.

Q@) “Receiving Party” shall mean the Party recetving Discovery Material produced by the Producing Party. 2. Use of Discovery Material. (a) All Discovery Material, or information derived therefrom, or any papers containing or revealing such information, shall be used by a non-Producing Party, or by a person or entity employed or retained by a non-Producing Party, or by anyone else granted access under this Stipulation and Order, solely for purposes of this Action and for no other purpose. (b) Nothing in this Stipulation and Order shall prevent any Producing Party from using its own Discovery Material, including Confidential Discovery Material, for any purpose. 3. Designating Confidential Discovery Material. (a) All designations of Confidential Discovery Material shall be made in good faith by the Designating Party at the time of disclosure, production, or tender. (b) Prior to designating Discovery Material as Confidential Discovery Material, the Designating Party must make a bona fide determination that the Discovery Material qualifies for confidentiality protection pursuant to the standards laid out in this Order. A Party may subsequently move for a court order to obtain a more stringent confidentiality designation for any Discovery Material. (c} The designation of Confidential Discovery Material may be made by ‘marking or placing the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” on each page containing any Confidential Discovery Material, or, in the case of a Document that is produced in native form or is impractical to produce in TIFF format, by placing the above-described legend on a TIFF- placcholder image bearing the production number of the Document. Any visual or other non-

paper or non-electronic Confidential Discovery Material shall be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” on the exterior surface of the container or folder that contains it. Confidential Discovery Material contained in the answer or response to an interrogatory or response to a request for admission shall be designated by including the word “CONFIDENTIAL” in the answer or response containing such information. (d) Ifa Disputing Party disputes the “Confidential” designation of Confidential Discovery Material, the Disputing Party must notify the Designating Party of its position in writing. Counsel shall confer in good faith to resolve any dispute concerning such designation. If the Parties cannot resolve the dispute within fourteen (14) calendar days of the service date of the written dispute notification, the Disputing Party may file a motion with the Court and file under seal any Discovery Material relevant to the discovery dispute. The Designating Party bears the burden of proving that Discovery Material contains Confidential Discovery Material. The Discovery Material at issue shall be treated as Confidential Discovery Material until the Court issues a decision. If the Court resolves the discovery dispute in the Disputing Party’s favor, the Designating Party shall remove the “Confidential” designation from such Discovery Material, and, within ten business days of the Court’s Order, provide a replacement copy of such Discovery Material to the Disputing Party. (e) The designation of any Discovery Material as confidential (or lack of such designation) shall not be construed as an admission of any kind, including, but not limited to, any admission that the Discovery Material is relevant, not subject to an applicable privilege or protection, admissible, or reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.

(H Indiscriminate designations are prohibited and designations shall not be made for an improper purpose (e.g., to unnecessarily encumber or slow the case development process or impose unnecessary expenses and burdens on the Parties). 4. Use and Disclosure of Confidential Discovery Material. (a) Any Document or information designated as Confidential Discovery Material in accordance with this Order shall only be used, shown, or disclosed as provided in this Order. A Receiving Party shall maintain Confidential Discovery Material in a secure and safe area and shall exercise at least the same standard of due and proper care with respect to the storage, custody, use, and/or dissemination of such material as is exercised by the Receiving Party with respect to its own confidential material. Confidential Discovery Material shall not be copied, reproduced, summarized, extracted, or abstracted, except to the extent that such copying, reproduction, summarization, extraction, or abstraction is reasonably necessary for the conduct of the Action.

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

In re Peabody Energy Corp. Securities Litigation, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

In re Peabody Energy Corp. Securities Litigation (In re Peabody Energy Corp. Securities 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)