Shaughnessy v. Scotiabank

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 13, 2024·No. 1:22-cv-10870·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK MICHAEL SHAUGHNESSY, Case No. 1:22-CV-10870 (LAP) Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE “against- ORDER AND j CONFIDENTIALITY SCOTIABANK, and KAY LAZIDIS, | AGREEMENT MICHAEL TROMBLY and ELYSSA HERMAN, in their individual and professional capacities;

Defendants.

LORETTA A. PRESKA, U.S.D.J.: WHEREAS, all 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 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 good cause exists 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 Order — including without limitation the Parties to this action (including their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns), their representatives, attorneys, agents, experts and consultants, ail third parties providing discovery in this action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive 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 “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits. 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing Party”) may designate as Confidential only the portion of such material that tt 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 the services Defendant provided to any customer or that Plaintiff provided on Defendant’s behalf to any customer;

(c) previously non-disclosed business plans, product-development information, or marketing plans; (d) previously non-disclosed customer information of any kind of any current or former customer or client of Defendant, including the identity of a customer, account numbers or other personally identifiable information pertaining to a customer, which information may be redacted at the time of . production; (e) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or

(f) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status. 3. The Producing Party may designate as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” only the portion of such Discovery Material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of trade secrets or competitively sensitive business information, the disclosure of which is highly likely to cause significant harm to business of the designating party and/or its competitive position. 4. With respect to the Confidential or 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 “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 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. 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 or 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 “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Information Governed by Protective Order”; or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 15 days after a deposition has concluded, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be designated “Confidential” or “Attorneys’ Eyes Only”, 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 15-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential. 6. If at any time before the trial of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it previously produced without limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by so apprising all prior recipients in writing. Thereafter, this Court and all persons subject to this Order will treat such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material as Confidential or Attorneys’ Eyes Only. 7. Nothing contained im 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. 8. 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, including in-house counsel, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers; (b) counsel retamed specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, or other assistant that such outside counsel employs and assigns to this matter; (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 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; 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 an Exhibit 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 an Exhibit hereto; (h) stenographers or videographers engaged to transcribe depositions the Parties conduct in this action; and (i) this Court, including any appellate court, its support personnel, and court reporters. (}) any other person that the Producing Party may agree in writing may receive such information. 9. Where a Producing Party has designated Discovery Material as Attorneys’ Eyes Only, other persons subject to this Order may disclose such information only to the following persons: (a) counsel retained specifically for this action, including 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

Shaughnessy v. Scotiabank, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Shaughnessy v. Scotiabank (Shaughnessy v. Scotiabank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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