Opinion ID: 215414
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Confidentiality Order Was Violated

Text: Although we do not find the Confidentiality Order to be, in all relevant respects, crystal clear, In re Peters, 543 F.Supp.2d at 333, we conclude that it barred the use, in the Massachusetts action, of New York discovery materials covered by the order. The Confidentiality Order states, in various provisions, that it governs the handling of confidential documents in this action (used at least nineteen times), the action (used once), this lawsuit (used twice), the above-entitled litigation (used thrice), this litigation (used once), the litigation (used once), and this case (used once). [9] App. at A43-47 (Confidentiality Order). The order also references these actions and each action, id. at A53, A57, which appear to be errors and, in any event, are not relevant to the present issue. Although use of these different phrases introduced a degree of ambiguity, the context makes apparent that all of these phrases were meant to be synonymous and refer to the same legal proceeding. However, we agree with Peters that such phrases may, depending on the circumstances, refer to a group of separate, but related, legal proceedings before more than one court or judge, rather than a single action with a single docket number in a single court. Since these phrases are not defined in the order, and are susceptible to different definitions, most of them are of little use in interpreting the scope of the order. We focus on two portions of the order. First, paragraph 4 of the order contains the following language: (b) Access to Confidential Information. In the absence of written permission from the Producing Party or Designating Party, as applicable, or an order of the Court, any Protected Material consisting of or containing CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION shall be used solely for purposes of the prosecution and defense of the above-entitled litigation[.] Confidentiality Order ¶ 4(b). Paragraph 4(c)is identical to 4(b), except that the phrase, ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY INFORMATION, is used in place of CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Although one can argue over the precise meaning of above-entitled litigation, there is no plausible definition of that phrase that would encompass both the New York action and the Massachusetts action. Above-entitled refers to the title appearing on the first page of the Confidentiality Order itself; however, every conceivable part of that litigation title differs from the comparable portion of the Massachusetts action's title: (a) the names of the parties differ, in that the Massachusetts action involved one additional plaintiff and one additional defendant; (b) the name of the court differs; and (c) the docket number differs. Second, after defining Court as referring to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, see Confidentiality Order ¶ (2)( l ), the order states that: the Court may overrule a party's confidentiality designation, id. ¶ 4(a); the Court may permit the use of confidential material for purposes beyond the above-entitled litigation, id. ¶ 4(b)-(c); Court employees owe no duty to the parties to maintain the confidentiality of documents filed with the Court, id. ¶ 6(a); applications and motions to the Court appending confidential materials are to be filed under seal with the caption of this case appearing on the outside of the envelope, id. ¶ 6(b); the parties may move the Court to resolve disputes over the sealing of documents, id. ¶ 6(c); the party challenging a confidentiality designation may seek relief from the Court, id. ¶ 8; and [t]he Court shall retain jurisdiction, even after termination of this lawsuit, to enforce this Order and to make such amendments and modifications to this Order as may be appropriate, id. ¶ 13. These procedures and remedies, limited exclusively to the Southern District of New York, would make no sense if the order were read as (a) permitting any party, without leave, to file confidential documents in any other court, and/or (b) giving the Southern District authority over filings and other proceedings in other courts. The order clearly anticipates that the Southern District, and no other court, would control all matters of confidentiality covered by the order. An essential component of that control is the requirement that confidential documents be used only in that case in that court. [10] To the extent that Peters argues that the Confidentiality Order was orally modified by Judge Baer in some fashion relevant to the present issue, see Peters's Br. at 88-90, we reject the argument. Although Judge Baer addressed the treatment of discovery materials on several occasions, Peters has not cited any oral order, or comment, altering any provisions governing the filing of documents in any other litigation or court. We agree with the Grievance Committee that Judge Baer's instruction that Peters's firm could keep certain transcript excerpts did not alter the Confidentiality Order's bar on the use of those excerpts elsewhere, including in Massachusetts. See In re Peters, 543 F.Supp.2d at 334. Thus, Peters's submission of confidential materials to the Massachusetts court, without the prior leave of Judge Baer, violated the Confidentiality Order.