The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 5, 2023·No. 1:22-cv-09852·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK THE DOE FUND, INC. No. 1:22-cv-09852 (JGLC) Plaintiff, v. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE BERKLEY INSURANCE COMPANY ORDER Defendant. JESSICA G. L. CLARKE, U.S.D.J. WHEREAS, 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 non-public and 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, agents, employees, attorneys, experts and consultants, and all third parties providing discovery in this action – will adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt:

1. All “Discovery Material” (i.e. information of any kind produced or disclosed in the course of discovery in this action) shall be deemed “Confidential” and shall be marked as such. Recipients of Discovery Material may use such material solely for the prosecution and defense of this action and any appeals thereto and not for any business, commercial, or competitive purpose or in any other litigation proceeding. 2. No person subject to this Order may disclose any Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits, or otherwise Ordered by this Court, regardless of its designation as “Confidential”, “Highly Confidential”, or lack thereof.

3. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing “Party”) may designate as “Highly Confidential” only the portions of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes: may harm a business, commercial, financial, or personal or other interest of the Producing Party; consists of non-disclosed financial information; is material relating to ownership or control of any non-public company; are business plans, product- development information, marketing plans or business-sensitive or other proprietary information; is information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; is sensitive information regarding the claims in the underlying actions; and/or any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status.

4. With respect to the Highly Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel may designate such portion as “Highly Confidential” by stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Highly Confidential” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility. 5. Upon request, any party may request that the Producing Party provide another copy of the Highly Confidential Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted for filing with the Court. Any such filing of Highly Confidential Discovery Material shall be filed under seal in accordance with this Order. 6. If the Court denies a motion to seal Discovery Materials marked Highly Confidential, that Discovery Material shall maintain its confidential status, generally, and shall be deemed marked “Confidential.” 7. If a Producing Party inadvertently fails to mark Discovery Materials as Highly Confidential, it may, upon notice to all parties, revise its designation in accordance with this Order.

8. It shall not be deemed a violation of this Agreement for counsel to disseminate Confidential Discovery Materials as part of their filings with the Court. All filings containing Highly Confidential or Confidential Discovery Materials shall remain subject to the provisions of this Agreement notwithstanding their filing or dissemination to counsel or availability from the Clerk or “online”. 9. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or portions of deposition transcripts as Highly Confidential Discovery Material either by: (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for Highly Confidential information, in which case the reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony in a separate volume and mark

it as “Highly Confidential 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 “Highly 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 Highly Confidential. 10. Persons subject to this Order may only disclose Discovery Material, whether Confidential or Highly Confidential, to the following persons: a. the Parties to this action and their affiliated or parent companies, their insurers and reinsurers, and counsel to their insurers and reinsurers, as well as reinsurance intermediaries, retrocessionaires, accountants, auditors, and regulatory agencies; b. counsel retained 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; f. any witness, other than employees of the Parties, who counsel for a Party in

good faith believes may be called to testify at trial or deposition in this action; 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 engaged to transcribe depositions the Parties conduct in this action; and i. this Court, including any appellate court, its support personnel, and court reporters. 11. Before disclosing any Discovery Material, whether Confidential or Highly Confidential, to any person referred to in subparagraphs 10(d), 10(f), or 10(g) above, counsel must provide a copy of this Order to such person who must agree to be bound by this Order. 12. In accordance with paragraph 5(d)(2) of this Court’s Individual Practices, any party filing documents under seal must simultaneously file with the Court a letter brief and supporting

declaration justifying – on a particularized basis – the continued sealing of such documents. The parties should be aware that the Court will unseal documents if it is unable to make “specific, on the record findings . . . demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006).

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

The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company (The Doe Fund, Inc. v. Berkley Insurance Company) — 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)