Doe v. Simmons
- John Koeltl
- 1:24-cv-01043
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Doe v. Simmons, Judge Koeltl entered a protective order governing confidential information exchanged during discovery.
Jane Doe, Russell Wendell Simmons, their counsel and assigned personnel, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, potential witnesses, experts and advisers, deposition stenographers, nonparties producing or receiving material, and other persons with actual notice of the order.
What happened
In Doe v. Simmons, Jane Doe and Russell Wendell Simmons jointly requested a protective order for sensitive, nonpublic information that may be exchanged during discovery. The order does not decide the parties’ underlying dispute.
The order limits disclosure of information designated confidential, including health records, identifying and financial information, and names of alleged minor victims of sexual abuse. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing materials under seal, handling inadvertently disclosed privileged information, and returning or destroying confidential materials after the case ends.
Judge John G. Koeltl entered the stipulated protective order on May 30, 2024. It binds the parties and other people who receive or have notice of the order, while preserving the court’s authority to decide later whether particular materials should remain confidential.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Simmons · No. 1:24-cv-01043
- John Koeltl
- May 30, 2024
Background
Jane Doe and Russell Wendell Simmons stipulated to a confidentiality agreement and asked the court to enter a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protections for nonpublic and sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The order concerns discovery management and does not resolve the claims or defenses in the lawsuit.
Confidential Information
The order permits a producing party to designate as confidential only material that the party reasonably and in good faith believes is highly sensitive, was kept nonpublic, and should receive confidential treatment. Listed categories include medical, mental-health, and other health-care records; Social Security numbers; personal telephone numbers; tax returns; credit and banking information; names of alleged minor victims of sexual abuse; and extracts or summaries of that information. The court may also give confidential status to other categories later.
The order states that the court has not found that any particular discovery material is confidential and retains discretion to decide whether confidential treatment is appropriate. Confidentiality designations do not change any burden of proof or persuasion, waive objections or privileges, or decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. The order also does not bind the court or court personnel.
Disclosure Limits and Challenges
Recipients generally may disclose confidential discovery material only to specified people, including the parties; counsel and their assigned staff; certain vendors; mediators or arbitrators; people identified on a document; potential witnesses; experts and specialized advisers; deposition stenographers; and the court. Several categories of recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. The producing party may disclose its own confidential material to its current or former employees without obtaining such agreements.
A party may object in writing to a confidentiality designation. If the parties cannot resolve the objection within 10 days, the producing party must file a motion asking the court to decide the issue. The producing party bears the burden of showing good cause for continued confidentiality. The disputed material remains confidential while a timely motion is pending, but loses that designation if the producing party does not timely file the motion.
Court Filings and Privileged Material
A party seeking to file confidential discovery material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal, supported by an application and declaration explaining why sealing is justified. If the court denies a timely sealing motion, the filing party must take steps to replace the redacted filing with an unredacted version. An exception applies when the parties stipulate that specific portions are both confidential and immaterial to the lawsuit.
The order establishes procedures for inadvertently disclosed material that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, or another privilege or immunity. The receiving party must limit review, notify the producing person, and generally return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure. The producing person must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to compel production. The producing party retains the burden of establishing protection.
Duration and Enforcement
Unless the parties agree otherwise or another court orders otherwise, receiving parties must return or destroy hard-copy confidential material within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, and certify that they have not retained copies or reproductions. Certain electronic materials and specified files retained by outside counsel remain subject to continuing confidentiality obligations. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce its obligations and impose contempt sanctions.
Ruling
The court entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on May 30, 2024. Judge John G. Koeltl’s order governs the handling of designated confidential discovery material but does not make a final determination about the confidentiality of any specific material or decide the merits of the case.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.