Potapova v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJuly 10, 2023
Docket1:23-cv-00571
StatusUnknown

This text of Potapova v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation (Potapova v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation) 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
Potapova v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IULIIA POTAPOVA, CASE NO.: 1:23-cv-00571-JMF Plaintiff, v. PROTECTIVE ORDER TOYOTA MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION, Defendant.

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: WHEREAS all of 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 certain nonpublic and confidential material that will be exchanged pursuant to and during the course of discovery in this case; WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords only extends to the limited information or items that are entitled, under the applicable legal principles, to confidential treatment; WHEREAS, the Parties further acknowledge that this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and WHEREAS, in light of these acknowledgements, and based on the representations of the Parties that discovery in this case will involve confidential documents or information the public disclosure of which will cause harm to the producing person and/or third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, and to protect against injury caused by dissemination of confidential documents and information, this Court finds good cause 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 Protective Order—including without limitation the parties to this action, 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 Protective Order—shall adhere to the following terms: 1. Any person subject to this Protective Order who receives from any other person subject to this Protective Order any “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed pursuant to and in course of discovery in this action) that is designated as “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order (hereinafter “Confidential Discovery Material”) shall not disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder.

2. The person producing any given Discovery Material may designate as Confidential only such portion of such material the public disclosure of which is either restricted by law or will cause harm to the business, commercial, financial or personal interests of the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed. “Confidential” information includes the full scope of information (regardless of how it is generated, stored, or maintained) or tangible things that qualify for protection under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), including, but not limited to:

(a) previously nondisclosed 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 nondisclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; (c) previously nondisclosed business plans, product development information, or marketing plans;

(d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or

(e) any other category of information hereinafter given confidential status by the Court.

3. Any Party or non-party may designate any information it or any other party or non- party produces (or previously has produced) as “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this Stipulation and Order. Such information or parts thereof may be designated by stamping the words “Confidential” on each page. Alternatively, the producing party may designate materials as “Confidential” by written notice to opposing counsel by setting forth a description of all materials to be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL,” where stamping the term “CONFIDENTIAL” is impractical or not possible. For information produced in native format, such as Excel spreadsheets or PowerPoint presentations, the producing party may include a designation such as “CONF.” in the file name. 4. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the producing person or that person’s 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.

5. With respect to deposition transcripts, a producing person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion as Confidential 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 (consisting of question and answer) 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 21 days after a deposition has concluded, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript and/or the specific 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 or exhibit (as the case may be), in their possession or under their control as directed by the producing person or that person’s counsel by the reporter. During the 21-day period following the conclusion of a deposition, the entire deposition transcript will be treated as if it had been designated Confidential.

6. If at any time prior to the trial of this action, a producing person realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material that she, he, or it had previously produced without limitation should be designated as Confidential, she, he, or it may so designate by so apprising all prior recipients of the Discovery Material in writing, and thereafter such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will thereafter be deemed to be and treated as Confidential under the terms of this Protective Order.

7. No person subject to this Protective Order other than the producing person shall disclose any of the Discovery Material designated by the producing person as Confidential to any other person whomsoever, except to:

(a) the Parties to this action, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers;

(b) counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical and other assistant employed by such counsel and assigned to this matter;

(c) outside vendors or service providers (such as copy-service providers and document- management consultants, graphic production services or other litigation support services) that counsel hire and assign to this matter, including computer service personnel performing duties in relation to a computerized litigation system;

(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;

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)
Potapova v. Toyota Motor Credit Corporation, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/potapova-v-toyota-motor-credit-corporation-nysd-2023.