WeWoreWhat, LLC v. CV Collection, LLC

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided April 15, 2021·No. 1:20-cv-08623·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

WEWOREWHAT, LLC, and ONIA, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Case No. 1:20-cv-08623-PAE CV COLLECTION, LLC, d/b/a The Great Eros, Case No. 1:21-cv-01623-PAE

Defendant. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY CV COLLECTION, LLC, d/b/a The Great Eros, AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER Plaintiff,

WEWOREWHAT, LLC, ONIA, LLC, DANIELLE BERNSTEIN, SAKS FIFTH AVENUE, INC., CARBON 38, INC., DOES 1–10 inclusive, and BOP LLC,

Defendants.

PAUL A. ENGELMAYER, District Judge:

WHEREAS, the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties” and each individually, a “Party”) request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant 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; and 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; and 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” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder. 2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (each, a “Producing Party”) may designate as Confidential or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: a. previously non-disclosed financial information (including without limitation profitability reports or estimates, financial statements, tax returns, percentage fees, design

fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sale margins); b. previously non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non- public company; c. previously non-disclosed business plans, product-development information, marketing plans, marketing studies or other commercially sensitive nonpublic information; d. previously non-disclosed identities of vendors, individual customers or other users of the Parties’ respective services; e. any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or f. any other category of information given confidential status by this Court after the date of this Order. 3. With respect to the Confidential or Confidential – 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 Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only by:

stamping or otherwise clearly marking as Confidential or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility. 4. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or portions of deposition transcripts as Confidential or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only Discovery Material either by: (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for Confidential or Confidential – 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 (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 Confidential – 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 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only. 5. If at any time before the trial of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only 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 or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only. In addition, the Producing Party shall provide each other Party with replacement versions of such Discovery Material that bears the Confidential or Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation within two (2) 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 of record for this action, including any paralegal, clerical, contracted support personnel, or other assistant that such counsel employs and assigns to this matter; c. outside vendors or service providers (such as litigation support service providers,

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 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 and provided that such expert witness shall have no present or known future status as a director, officer, partner, shareholder, employee, consultant, or contractor of any of the Parties or their parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, predecessors, or successors, nor have any other form of financial interest in, or contractual relationship with, the foregoing (excepting only a customary fee in remuneration of time spent and expenses incurred acting in his or her role as an expert in this action); 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.

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

WeWoreWhat, LLC v. CV Collection, LLC, (S.D.N.Y. 2021).

WeWoreWhat, LLC v. CV Collection, LLC (WeWoreWhat, LLC v. CV Collection, 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)