Court filing
Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by… — Joint MOTION for Protective Order filed by PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC… (Dkt. 19)
No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG · Doc. 19 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
A joint motion for entry of a confidentiality agreement and protective order, filed January 14, 2022 as Document 19 in Marshall v. Prestamos CDFI, LLC, Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The plaintiffs and defendant Prestamos CDFI, LLC ask the court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1) to enter the proposed order, which the motion states is attached as Exhibit A. The motion applies the Third Circuit's good-cause balancing factors from Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson and Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg. It states that the plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of Paycheck Protection Program loan applicants and that discovery will likely include loan applications, personal financial information, tax documents and the defendant's review of PPP loan applications.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 19 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ALICIA MARSHALL, DANIEL
PRONSKY, PARIS TOWNSEND,
NANCILEE HOLLAND, LEONA Civil Action No. 5:21-cv-04337-JMG
OWSLEY, KOLAWOLE AHMADOU,
KIANA DERVIN, KRISTINA
HENDERSON, DUSTIN INNIS, KELLY
STALNAKER and JAMIE JONES,
individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
PRESTAMOS CDFI, LLC,
Defendant.
JOINT MOTION FOR ENTRY OF CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND
PROTECTIVE ORDER
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1), Plaintiffs Alicia Marshall,
Daniel Pronsky, Paris Townsend, Nancilee Holland, Leona Owsley, Kolawole Ahmadou, Kiana
Dervin, Kristina Henderson, Dustin Innis, Kelly Stalnaker and Jamie Jones individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendant Prestamos CDFI, LLC
(“Prestamos”), through their undersigned counsel, hereby move this Court for entry of their
proposed Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, attached hereto as Exhibit A, to
maintain the confidentiality of certain documents and information. In support of this Motion, the
Parties state as follows:
1. Counsel for Plaintiffs and Defendant have conferred and reached agreement on the
form of the proposed Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order, a copy of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
2. Entry of the proposed Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order is
appropriate under Rule 26(c) to prevent the unauthorized disclosure and use of Plaintiffs’ and
Defendant’s and others’ trade secrets, sensitive competitive information, commercially sensitive
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 19 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 4
data, sensitive personally identifying information, and other confidential materials and
information.
3. The Parties submit that good cause exists for the Court to grant the Confidentiality
Agreement and Protective Order. In assessing whether “good cause” exists, the Third Circuit has
adopted a balancing approach, which considers the following factors:
a. whether disclosure will violate any privacy interest;
b. whether the information is being sought for a legitimate purpose or for an improper
purpose;
c. whether disclosure of the information will cause a party embarrassment;
d. whether confidentiality is being sought over information important to public health
and safety;
e. whether the sharing of information among litigants will promote fairness and
efficiency;
f. whether a party benefiting from the order of confidentiality is a public entity or
official; and
g. whether the case involves issues important to the public.
Glenmede Trust Co. v. Thompson, 56 F.3d 476, 483 (3d Cir. 1995) (citing Pansy v. Borough of
Stroudsburg, 23 F.3d 772, 786–91 (3d Cir. 1994)). This assessment involves a balancing of harm
to the party or parties seeking protection from disclosure against the importance of disclosure to
the public. Pansy, 23 F.3d at 787. In cases “involving large-scale discovery,” the court “may
construct a broad umbrella protective order upon a threshold showing by the movant of good
cause.” Id. at 787 n.17. Accord In re Avandia Mktg., Sales Practices and Prod. Liab. Litig., 924
F.3d 662, 672 n.5 (3d Cir. 2019).
4. Applying the Third Circuit’s balancing test demonstrates that good cause exists for
granting this Motion.
5. Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of potentially thousands of
individuals or entities who applied to receive loans under the Paycheck Protection Program.
Although the Parties continue to negotiate the scope of discovery, it is likely that discovery will
entail production of loan applications, personal financial information, tax documents,
2
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 19 Filed 01/14/22 Page 3 of 4
communications, and other sensitive and confidential information belonging to Plaintiffs and other
loan applicants. Indeed, Plaintiffs already have served discovery requests which seek the
production of confidential personal and commercial information.
6. Discovery may also include the exchange of sensitive and confidential business
information concerning Defendant’s lending operation, financial information, and business
relationships, including its decisions relating to its participation in the PPP and its review and
analysis of PPP loan applications it received.
7. The confidential information at issue in this matter is not important to matters of
public health or safety and the interest in confidentiality outweighs the presumption of public
access.
8. For these reasons, the proposed Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order
should be entered.
9. The Parties understand the Court reserves its inherent power to modify the terms of
this agreement and permit the disclosure of information where the interest of justice so requires.
WHEREFORE, the Parties respectfully request the Court grant their Joint Motion for Entry
of Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order.
3
Case 5:21-cv-04337-JMG Document 19 Filed 01/14/22 Page 4 of 4
Dated: January 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Lawrence J. Lederer . /s/ Marcel S. Pratt .
Lawrence J. Lederer (Pa. ID 50445) Marcel S. Pratt (Pa. ID 307483)
Michael L. Murphy (admitted pro hac vice) prattm@ballardspahr.com
Patricia M. Kipnis (Pa. ID 91470) Michael R. McDonald (Pa. ID 326873)
Bart D. Cohen (Pa. ID 57606) mcdonaldm@ballardspahr.com
1055 Thomas Jefferson Street NW, Suite 540
Washington, DC 20007 BALLARD SPAHR LLP
T: 202.463-2101 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor
F: 202.463-2103 Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
llederer@baileyglasser.com Telephone: 215.665.8500
mmurphy@baileyglasser.com Facsimile: 215.864.8999
pkipnis@baileyglasser.com
Roy Herrera
NOLAN HELLER KAUFFMAN LLP roy@ha-firm.com
Justin A. Heller (admitted pro hac vice) Daniel A. Arellano
Matthew M. Zapala (admitted pro hac vice) daniel@ha-firm.com
80 State Street, 11th Floor
Albany, NY 12207 HERRERA ARELLANO LLP
T: 518.449.3300 530 E. McDowell Rd. #107-150
jheller@nhkllp.com Phoenix, AZ 85004
mzapala@nhkllp.com T: 520-409-4496
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Attorneys for Defendant
Prestamos CDFI, LLC
4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.paed.589575.19.0.pdf
- Size
- 52,995 bytes
- SHA-256
- fcd63f65a65de579176e0746188012285f08c2d7ce695f0d40a16a98edfedfd7
- Original
- PACER (login required)