Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Clear Blue Insurance Company

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 7, 2024·No. 1:21-cv-04721·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK AMERICA PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF Case No. 1:21 -cv-04721-PGG Plaintitt, STIPULATED v. CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND CLEAR BLUE INSURANCE COMPANY, PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendant.

PAUL G. GARDEPHE, 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 damages 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, experts and consultants, all 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 “Damages Discovery Material” (i.e., mformation of any kind produced or disclosed in the course of damages 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 Damages Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits: 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Damages Discovery Material (“Producing Party”) may designate as Confidential only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) material subject to attorney-client privilege and/or work product protection in connection with the lawsuit Bentley Harry v. J.T. Magen & Company Inc., et al., in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, Index No. 157592/2020 (the “Underlying Action”); (b) information relating to rates, fees, and/or retainers charged by any defense counsel, consultants, vendors, and/or experts in connection with the Underlying Action; (c) information relating to audits of any charges described in subparagraph 2(b) above; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or (e) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status. 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Damages Discovery Material, 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 Damages Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted. 4, If at any time before the trial of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential some portion(s) of Damages 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 Damages Discovery Material as Confidential. 5. 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. 6. Where a Producing Party has designated Damages 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, except for employees and representatives of Clear Blue Insurance Company assigned to any party adverse to J.T. Magen & Company Inc. and/or RXR Realty LLC in the Underlying Action; (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) 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; (d) as to any document, its author, its addressee, and any other person indicated on the face of the document as having received a copy; (e) 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; (f) 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; and (g) this Court, including any appellate court, its support personnel, and court reporters. 7, Before disclosing any Confidential Damages Discovery Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 7(c), 7(e), or 7(f) 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 retain each signed Non-Disclosure Agreement, hold it in escrow, and produce it to opposing counsel either before such person is permitted to testify (at inquest or trial) or at the conclusion of the case, whichever comes first. 8. In accordance with paragraph 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). 9. The Court also retains discretion whether to afford confidential treatment to any Damages Discovery Material designated as Confidential and submitted to the Court in connection with any motion, application, or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court. All persons are hereby placed on notice that the Court is unlikely to seal or otherwise afford confidential treatment to any Damages Discovery Material introduced in evidence at trial, even if such material has previously been sealed or designated as Confidential.

4 □

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

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Clear Blue Insurance Company, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Clear Blue Insurance Company (Travelers Property Casualty Company of America v. Clear Blue 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)