Morling v. The Michaels Companies, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedApril 17, 2024
Docket1:23-cv-08240
StatusUnknown

This text of Morling v. The Michaels Companies, Inc. (Morling v. The Michaels Companies, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Morling v. The Michaels Companies, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Case No.: 1:23-cv-08240-VSB KATHARINE MORLING,

Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER - against –

THE MICHAELS COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1-10;

Defendants.

VERNON S. BRODERICK, District Judge: WHEREAS, all of the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties” and each 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 that good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Parties to this action, their respective officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, any other person in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, and all other persons with actual 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 expressly permitted hereunder. Discovery Material that a Party has designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” subject to Paragraph 12 shall be treated the same as other Confidential Discovery Material except that Discovery Material designated as “Highly Confidential – Attorney’s Eyes Only” pursuant to the requirements of Paragraph 12 may only be disclosed to those persons identified in Paragraph

7 (b),(c), (d), (e),(g), (h), (i) and (k) below. 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (each, “Producing Party”) may designate as “Confidential” only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) non-public 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, product-development information, or marketing plans;

(d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or (e) any information that the producing Party deems in good faith to constitute sensitive or proprietary financial, technical, marketing, commercial or other business information or data that is entitled to protection under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

(f) any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order.

3. With respect to the confidential portions of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel shall designate such portion by stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential- Attorney’s Eyes Only” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility. 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 termination of this action a Producing Party inadvertently fails to designate as “Confidential” some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it previously produced without limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by notifying all Parties in writing. Thereafter, all persons subject to this Order will treat such

designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material as “Confidential.” In addition, the Producing Party shall provide each other Party with replacement versions of such Discovery Material that bears the “Confidential” designation within two (2) business days of providing such notice. 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, but only to the extent necessary for providing assistance in this action or for internal reporting and approval processes in connection with this action; their insurers, and counsel to their insurers. Prior shall be informed of this Order and advised that such person is required to maintain the confidentiality of such information;

(b) Counsel of record to each party, and clerical, paralegal, and secretarial staff necessary to assist such outside counsel in the prosecution and defense of this action;

(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 Exhibit A 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 executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as Exhibit A hereto;

(g) any person a Party retains to serve as an expert witness or otherwise provide specialized advice to counsel in connection with this action, provided such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as Exhibit A hereto;

(h) stenographers engaged to transcribe depositions the Parties conduct in this action; and

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

(j) Such other persons as may hereinafter be properly qualified to receive “Confidential” information pursuant to subsequent order of the Court

(k) Any other person to whom the Parties agree in writing. 8.

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

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Morling v. The Michaels Companies, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/morling-v-the-michaels-companies-inc-nysd-2024.