Focus Products Group International, LLC et al v. Allure Home Creations Co., Inc et al

Filing 29

OPINION. For the reasons in this Opinion, Defendants' motion for a one-tier protective order is granted. The parties should confer as to the correct wording of such an order, in light of the specifications articulated in the instant opinion. It is so ordered. Re: 23 MOTION for Protective Order filed by Hookless Systems of North America, Inc., Focus Products Group International, LLC, Zahner Design Group, LTD. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet on 3/24/2014) (rjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------­

------------------­

---X

FOCUS PRODUCTS GROUP ITNERNATIONAL, LLC,
ZAHNER DEISGN GROUP, LTD., AND HOOKLESS
SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
13 Civ. 746
- against OPINION
ALLURE HOME CREATIONS CO., INC., AND
ALLURE HOSPITALITY CREATIONS,
Defendants.

----------X
A P PEA RAN C E S:

COHEN LLP
1350 Avenue of the Amerlcas
New York, NY 10019
By: Morris E. Cohen, Esq.
Lee A. Goldberg, Esq.

ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE, LLP.
51 West 52nd Street
New York, NY 10019
Grace L. Pan, Esq.

Sweet, D. J. ,

Plaintiffs Focus Products Group International, LLC
(" Focus If),

Zahner Design Group, Ltd.

Systems of North America, Inc.

"

(" ZDG If ) , and Hookless

("HSNAIf)

(collectively,

intiffs"), and Defendants Allure Home Creation Co, Inc. and
If

lure Hospitality Creations LLC (collectively,

or

"Defendants"), simultaneously move pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(c) and

Civil Rule 37.2, re

their propos

adoption of

protective orders.

For the reasons set forth
protect

ctively,

low, Defendants'

order, which employs a one-tier approach, is adopted

with slight modification.

Prior Proceedings

On February 11, 2014, Focus served a motion for entry
of a protective order, which it subsequently filed on February
20, 2014.

Both part

s agree as to the need

order, but differ as to the form

a protect

t order should take.

On March 19, 2014 this motion was heard and mar
fully submitted.

1

Defendants' One-Tier Proposal is Adopted, Subject to Plaintiffs'
Counsel's Ability to Request that Specific Documents be Shown to
its Client

alntiffs propose a two-tiered system where documents
can be marked either with a "Confi
may be shown to up to two persons

tial" designation, whi
signated by a Party, or with

a "Highly Confidential- Attorneys' Eyes Only" Designation.
iffs maintain that such an approach is essential to
fa

e settlement, and is common in intellectual p

litiaations, though no

rty

is cited.

Defendants, in contrast, propose a one-tier svstem
re all "Confidential" documents are considered as such, and
ject to the attorne

eves only limitation.

contend that Plaintiffs'
categories of con

Plaintiffs
approach is warrant

De

s

is ambiguous

the two

iality, and unnecessary.

ve failed to demonstrate why a two-tier
As such, Defendants'

stion of a

one-tier approach will be adopted, though Plaintif

'

counsel

may specify certain documents that it would like to discuss with
its clients, to which Defendants may then object.
procedure is common during discovery, and
purposes of this litigation.
2

This
e for the

Conclusion

For
one-tier protect

foregoing reasons, Defendants' motion for a
order is granted.

The part

s should confer

as to the correct wording of such an order, in light of the
specifications articulated in the instant opinion.

It is so ordered.

7-"

New York~~Y
March
2014
U.S.D.J.

3