Opinion ID: 4677424
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Any other person only upon (i) order of the

Text: Arbitrator entered upon notice to the Parties, or (ii) written stipulation of, or statement on the record by, the Producing Party who provided the Discovery Material being disclosed, and provided that such person signs an undertaking in the form attached as Exhibit A hereto. Recipients of any Confidential Material are prohibited from copying or permitting to be copied (whether by taking notes, photographs, Xerox machine or 18 otherwise), or creating an electronic image of all or any portion of the Confidential Material, except for use by counsel for the parties for use in the Arbitration. Recipients shall not permit any person to review all or any portion of the Confidential Material, other than as provided in this Agreement. Further, Recipients shall not discuss or disclose any Confidential Material to any 3rd Party outside of the persons set forth in Paragraphs S(A) through (E).68 These individuals may only receive confidential documents if they agree to sign this agreement.69 Section 12 adds that “[a]ll materials designated as Confidential Discovery Materials or filed pursuant to Paragraph 10 shall be released from confidential treatment only upon Order of a Court.”70 Additionally, [t]he Parties agree to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation pending the entry by the Court of this Stipulation, and any violation of its terms shall be subject to the same sanctions and penalties as if this Stipulation had been entered by a Delaware Court of competent Jurisdiction.71 Wild Meadows does not expressly address why the specific provisions of this agreement are inadequate. Instead, Wild Meadows vaguely argues that, as a private entity that engages in a competitive market, it faces “irreparable harm” if it is forced to disclose its business records.72 The party claiming a need for confidentiality, or greater confidentiality, bears the burden of proof; business records are not entitled to an “attorneys’ eyes only” 68 A079-80. 69 A075. 70 A083. 71 A085. 72 A129-30. 19 designation simply because they are business records. Wild Meadows’ vague assertions are not useful in assessing the need for greater protection because they do not identify legitimate deficiencies in the actual language of the agreement. To the contrary, Weidman carefully balanced Wild Meadows’ concerns in order to “reasonably protect” its sensitive information. Therefore, we affirm the Superior Court’s conclusion that Weidman possessed the statutory authority to impose this confidentially agreement on the parties.