Wise v. Combe Incorporated

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedMay 30, 2023
Docket7:22-cv-10787
StatusUnknown

This text of Wise v. Combe Incorporated (Wise v. Combe Incorporated) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Wise v. Combe Incorporated, (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ROSALIND WISE and MOONA CHOUDRY, individually and on behalf of all STIPULATED others similarly situated, CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND Plaintiffs, PROTECTIVE ORDER v. Case No. 7:22-cv-10787 (PMH) COMBE INCORPORATED, Hon. Philip M. Halpern Defendant. PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: 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, 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 “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” 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 it 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 ownership or control of any non-public company;

(c) previously non-disclosed business plans, product- development information, or marketing plans; (d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; (e) previously non-disclosed trade or business secrets, secret processes, proprietary research, product formulas, formulation documents or any other confidential commercial information or material which could give competitors a business advantage; or (f) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status.

3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material (including interrogatory responses, responses to requests for admissions, pleadings, affidavits, and responses to requests for production of documents) other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, 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 Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted. 4. 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 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,” 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. 5. 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 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. 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 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 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 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. Before disclosing any Confidential Discovery Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 7(d), 7(f), or 7(g) above, counsel must provide a copy of this Order to such person, who must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit 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 deposition or trial) or at the conclusion of the case, whichever comes first. 9. In accordance with Rule 5 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 . . .

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Wise v. Combe Incorporated, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wise-v-combe-incorporated-nysd-2023.