Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 12, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-09892·Unknown

Opinion

CANT PEER OE UN ee ge IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SPOOL OLY □□□□ □ SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK PODAG§ ep hit } SYMPHONY INVESTMENT PARTNERS, INC., | Case No. TASTES □□□ Plaintiff, V. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE KEECO LLC and RICHARD PLATT ORDER Defendant.

GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge: WHEREAS, the above-captioned Plaintiff, Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. (‘‘Plain- tiff’) and Defendants Keeco LLC and Richard Platt (collectively, “Defendants;” together with Plaintiff, 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 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 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 Party or person has designated as “CON- FIDENTIAL” pursuant to this Order, no Party or 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, “Produc- ing Party”) may designate as CONFIDENTIAL only the portion of such material that it reasona- bly and in good faith believes consists of: (a) publicly non-disclosed financial information (including without limitation profit- ability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guaran- tee payments, sales reports, and sale margins); (b) publicly non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; (c) publicly non-disclosed business plans, product-development information, or market- ing 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. Any Party or non-Party may designate as "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL - AT- TORNEY’S EYES ONLY" (by stamping the relevant page or as otherwise set forth herein) any document or response to discovery which that Party or non-Party considers in good faith to con- tain information that should not be viewed by persons other than counsel of record in this action because it constitutes, reflects, or discloses a trade secret, or other confidential personal, com- mercial or business, proprietary or financial information, subject to protection under law. The "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" designation is appropriate only where the designating Party in good faith believes Confidential Information is so sensitive that there is a real danger that the Designating Party could be prejudiced if the information was oth- erwise disclosed under a "CONFIDENTIAL" designation. Where a document or response con- sists of more than one page, the first page and each page on which "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

- ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" appears shall be so designated. 4, A Party or non-Party may designate information disclosed during a deposition or in response to written discovery as "CONFIDENTIAL" or “HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" (collectively referred to herein as "Confidential Information") by so indicating in said responses or on the record at the deposition and requesting the preparation of a separate transcript of such material. In addition, a Party or non-Party may designate in writ- ing, within twenty (20) days after receipt of said responses or of the deposition transcript for which the designation is proposed, those specific pages of the transcript and/or specific responses be treated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL- ATTORNEY'S EYES ON- LY." Any other Party may object to such proposal, in writing or on the record. Upon such objec- tion, the Parties shall follow the procedures described in paragraph 10 below. After any designa- tion made according to the procedure set forth in this paragraph, the designated documents or information shall be treated according to the designation until the designation is resolved accord- ing to the procedures described herein, and counsel! for all Parties shall be responsible for mark- ing all previously unmarked copies of the designated material in their possession or contro] with the specified designation. Any Party or third party who inadvertently fails to designate infor- mation as Confidential Information, or otherwise wishes to change the designation of confidenti- ality under this Stipulated Protective Order, may later do so, and such information shall be treat- ed by the Receiving Party as being so designated from the time the Receiving Party is notified in writing of the inadvertent designation. 5. 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” or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY" by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “CONFIDENTIAL” or "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-

ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY “ the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with leg- ibility or audibility; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Ma- terial with the confidential information redacted. 6. 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 report~ er will bind the transcript of the designated testimony in a separate volume and mark it as “Con- fidential Information Governed by Protective Order;” or (b) notifying the reporter and all 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” or "HIGHLY CONFIDEN- TIAL-ATTORNEY'S 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 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been des- ignated CONFIDENTIAL or HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEY'S EYES ONLY. 7, 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 previous- ly 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 por- tion(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 “Confiden- tial” designation within two business days of providing such notice. 8.

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

Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC (Symphony Investment Partners, Inc. v. Keeco, LLC) — 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)