Pruett v. Unifi, L.L.C.

District Court, D. Nevada·Decided June 30, 2023·No. 3:23-cv-00008·Unknown

Opinion

CHRISTOPHER PRUETT, CASE NO. 3:23-cv-00008-LRH-CLB Plaintiff, PROTECTIVE ORDER vs. Defendant. __________________________________ Disclosure and discovery activity in this action may involve production of confidential, proprietary, or private information for which special protection from disclosure may be warranted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1). To promote the exchange of discovery, the Court grants the request that the following proposed Protective Order be approved by this Court= before certain information and documents are produced. The proposed Protective Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords extends to only the limited information or items that are entitled under law to treatment as confidential. 1. Scope All documents produced in the course of discovery, all responses to discovery requests, and all deposition testimony and exhibits and any other materials which may be subject to discovery (hereinafter collectively “Discovery Material”) shall be subject to this protective order concerning confidential information as set forth below. Any party, or any third party who produces documents in this litigation, may designate documents as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” but only after review of the documents by an attorney who has, in good faith, determined that the documents contain “Confidential Information,” as defined below, and pursuant to the procedure set forth below. 2. Definition of Confidential Information As used herein: a. “Confidential Information” shall mean all information (regardless of how generated, stored, or maintained), material, tangible things, or testimony that qualify for protection under standards developed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, produced by or disclosed to a Received party by a Producing party that the Producing party or a Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Producing party and which has been so designated by the Producing party or Designating party. Such information, material, tangible things, or testimony may include, but is not limited to, trade secrets, proprietary business information, competitively sensitive information, technical information, customer information, confidential information relating to employees, vendor information, financial information, sales data, business plans and strategies, agreements and communications, or other information the disclosure of which the Producing party or the Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be confidential or proprietary information or trade secrets of the Producing party or the disclosure of which would otherwise be detrimental to the conduct of the Producing party’s business or the business of any of the Producing party’s customers or clients. Extracts and summaries of Confidential Information shall also be treated as confidential. The following are examples of information that is not Confidential Information: i. published advertising materials; ii. any information that is, or, after its disclosure to a Receiving party, becomes part of the public domain as a result of publication not involving a violation of this Protective Order; iii. information that the Receiving party can show by written records was already known to it prior to the disclosure, provided that it was either (i) received from the Producing party and was not received under an express or implied obligation of confidentiality to the Producing party, or (ii) received from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no express or implied obligation of confidentiality to the Producing party; iv. any information that the Receiving party can show by written records was received by it after the disclosure from a source who obtained the information lawfully and under no express or implied obligation of confidentiality to the Producing party; and v. any information that the Receiving party can show was independently developed by it after the time of disclosure by personnel who did not have access to the Producing party’s Confidential Information. b. “Attorney Eyes Only Information” shall mean all Confidential Information that, consistent with the terms and conditions below, the Producing party or Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be so sensitive that its dissemination deserves further limitation by preventing the disclosure thereof to the Receiving party. As such, Attorney Eyes Only Information shall only be disclosed to the Receiving party’s counsel and persons identified in Paragraph II(4)(b) herein below, but shall not be disclosed to the Receiving party. Attorney Eyes Only Information is a subset of Confidential Information, and shall be treated as Confidential Information, except as specifically stated otherwise hereinbelow. c. “Producing party” shall mean any Party to this action or any non-party to this action producing Confidential Information in connection with depositions, document production or otherwise, or the party asserting the confidentiality privilege, as the case may be. d. “Receiving party” shall mean any Party to this action or any non-party to this action receiving Confidential Information in connection with depositions, document production or otherwise in this action. e. “Designating party” shall mean any party to the above-captioned action or any Producing party that designated the Confidential Information as “confidential” by notation on the document, statement on the record of the deposition, written advice to the respective undersigned counsel for the Parties hereto if the Confidential Information is not reduced to documentary, tangible, or physical form, if the Confidential Information cannot conveniently be so designated, or consistent with the terms of this Protective Order, or by other appropriate means. 3. Right to Designate Information as Confidential Subject to the terms of paragraphs II(4) and II(8), any party may act as a Designating party and designate information, material, tangible things, or testimony produced or given by a Producing party in connection with this action that said Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be Confidential Information by notation on the document, statement on the record of the deposition with subsequent notation by the Producing party or Designating party on the cover page of the deposition transcript if not already present on the cover page of the transcript when received from the court reporter, written advice to the respective undersigned counsel for the Parties hereto if the Confidential Information is not reduced to documentary, tangible, or physical form, if the Confidential Information cannot conveniently be so designated, or consistent with the terms of this Protective Order, or by other appropriate means. Subject to the terms of Paragraph II(4), Confidential Information that a Producing party or Designating party reasonably and in good faith considers to be Attorney Eyes Only Information shall be designated accordingly by notation on the document, statement on the record of the deposition with subsequent notation by the Producing party or Designating party on the cover page of the deposition transcript if not already present on the cover page of the transcript when received from the court reporter, written advice to the respective undersigned counsel for the Parties hereto if the Confidential Information is not reduced to documentary, tangible, or physical form, if the Confidential Information cannot conveniently be so designated, or consistent with the terms of this Protective Order, or by other appropriate means 4. Treatment of Confidential Informatio

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

Pruett v. Unifi, L.L.C., (D. Nev. 2023).

Pruett v. Unifi, L.L.C. (Pruett v. Unifi, L.L.C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Center for Auto Safety v. Chrysler Group, LLC
809 F.3d 1092 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Carney v. Resolution Trust Corp.
10 F.3d 1164 (Fifth Circuit, 1994)
FCA U.S. LLC v. Ctr. for Auto Safety
137 S. Ct. 38 (Supreme Court, 2016)