Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc.

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJune 22, 2022
Docket1:20-cv-10373
StatusUnknown

This text of Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc. (Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, 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
Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Opinion

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK DOC #: DATE FILED: 6/22/2 022 FAUSTINO PUJOLS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) INDEX NO. 20-cv-10373 (GHW) -v.- ) ) RTS SOLUTIONZ, INC. a/k/a SOLUTIONZ, ) STIPULATED INC. and as successor to and Real Time Services, ) CONFIDENTIALITY Inc., Bill Warnick, CEO and Kirk R. Fernandez, ) AGREEMENT AND CEO, Individually, ) PROTECTIVE ORDER ) Defendants. ) 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 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: 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (each, reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) previously non-disclosed financial information (including without limitation contract pricing, invoice charges, labor pricing or labor charges, information reflecting wages paid to employees other than Plaintiff, profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sale margins) (but not including any information reflecting wages actually paid to Plaintiff Faustino Pujols); (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; or

(e) any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its 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. 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 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 realizes that it should have designated 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 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, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers; (b) counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, or other assistant that such outside counsel employs and assigns to this matter; 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. 8. Before disclosing any Confidential Discovery Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 7(d), 7(f), or 7(g) above, counsel must provide a copy of this Order to such person, who must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as Exhibit A hereto stating that he or she has read this Order and agrees to be bound by its terms. Said counsel must counsel either before such person is permitted to testify (at deposition or trial) or at the conclusion of the case, whichever comes first. 9. This Order binds the Parties and certain others to treat as Confidential any Discovery Materials so classified. The Court has not, however, made any finding regarding the

confidentiality of any Discovery Materials, and retains full discretion to determine whether to afford confidential treatment to any Discovery Material designated as Confidential hereunder. All persons are placed on notice that the Court is unlikely to seal or otherwise afford confidential treatment to any Discovery Material introduced into evidence at trial, even if such material has previously been sealed or designated as Confidential. 10.

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)
Pujols v. RTS Solutionz, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pujols-v-rts-solutionz-inc-nysd-2022.