Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedFebruary 28, 2022
Docket1:20-cv-07464
StatusUnknown

This text of Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P. (Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P.) 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
Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

DOC #: DATE FILED: 2/28/ 2022 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK X NAFESSA SYEED and NAULA NDUGGA, : : Plaintiff(s), : 1:20-cv-7464-GHW : -v - : BLOOMBERG L.P., : CONFIDENTIALITY : AGREEMENT AND Defendant. : PROTECTIVE ORDER : X GREGORY H. WOODS, 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 or individually sensitive information that they may need to disclose in connection with discovery in this action; 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” or “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” (together, “Confidential Discovery Material”) pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder: 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) 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, including personnel records of any Party or current or former employee; or (e) any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. 3. A Producing Party may designate Discovery Material as “Confidential- Attorneys’ Eyes Only” if the Producing Party reasonably and in good faith believes that the Discovery Material contains highly confidential or highly sensitive non-public information that that is of such a nature that the harm to the Producing Party caused by disclosure to the

Requesting Party outweighs the harm to the ability of the Requesting Party’s counsel to evaluate and use the information in this action. For purposes of this Protective Order, Confidential- Attorneys’ Eyes Only information to the extent consistent with the standard set forth above may include, but is not limited to, non-public materials containing information related to: (a) personnel, disciplinary, leave, or recruiting records, including performance reviews, compensation information or other financial remuneration information, or medical or health information of any (b) medical records relating to Plaintiff; and (c) commercially sensitive non-public information (e.g. information that constitutes or contains proprietary financial, technical, or commercially sensitive competitive information).

4. The fact that information may fall within one of the categories identified in ¶ 3(a) –(c) above, and has been designated by the Producing Party as Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only, does not preclude the Receiving Party from challenging the designation as set forth in ¶ 17 below. 5. With respect to the Confidential or Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel may designate such portion as “Confidential” or “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” or “Confidential- Attorneys’ Eyes Only” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility. 6. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or portions of deposition transcripts as Confidential or Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only either by (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for Confidential or Confidential-

Attorneys’ Eyes Only 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 “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information Governed by Protective Order;” or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after receipt of the deposition transcript, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be designated Confidential or “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” in which case all counsel receiving the transcript will be responsible for marking the copies of the designated transcript in their During the 30-day period following receipt of the deposition transcript, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential, unless exhibits or testimony are identified on the record during the deposition as Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only, in which case the entire transcript, including exhibits, shall be deemed so designated until the 30-day period

has expired, or until the Producing Party has provided specific designations. 7. No depositions that will involve the use of Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information will be scheduled until the parties have had the opportunity to meet and confer over designations of AEO material to be used at such deposition, and to bring any disputes to the Court for resolution, so that it will be clear before the deposition begins whether any exhibits will give rise to a portion of the deposition being designated Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only. 8. If at any time before the termination of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential or Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only 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 or Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only. In addition, the Producing Party shall provide each other Party with replacement versions of such Discovery Material that bears the “Confidential” or

“Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only” designation within two business days of providing such notice. 9. 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. 10. 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; any paralegal, clerical, or other assistant that such outside counsel employs and assigns to this matter;

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)
Naula Ndugga v. Bloomberg L.P., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/naula-ndugga-v-bloomberg-lp-nysd-2022.