Weisshaus v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- Eaton
- 1:11-cv-06616
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Weisshaus v. Port Authority, Judge Eaton granted the Port Authority’s motion for a protective order over confidential financial information, with modifications.
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Yoel Weisshaus. The order governs how specified confidential financial information disclosed in the lawsuit may be viewed and used.
What happened
In Weisshaus v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the Port Authority sought a protective order covering financial information from its General Ledger and work papers that it had been ordered to disclose to Weisshaus.
The Port Authority said the information was confidential and that disclosure could harm its contract-bidding process and negotiations. The court found good cause for protection, and noted that Weisshaus had consented to the proposed terms.
Judge Eaton granted the motion and ordered that the proposed confidentiality order, as modified to clarify signing requirements and procedures for filing sealed documents, would be entered separately.
The detailed version
- Weisshaus v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · No. 1:11-cv-06616
- Eaton
- June 10, 2024
Background
The Port Authority filed a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for a protective order. The motion followed an earlier court order requiring the Port Authority to disclose information from its General Ledger and related work papers that Elizabeth McCarthy had relied on in an affidavit and cash-flow analysis. The earlier order concerned information about unamortized investments in use, capital paid with cash or reserves, and pass-through grants.
The Parties’ Positions
The Port Authority argued that the documents were not public and had been shared only with Port Authority employees and independent auditors preparing annual financial statements. It said the General Ledger contained contract-payment information that could give bidders an advantage in future bidding and rent-payment information that could disadvantage the Port Authority in future negotiations. The Port Authority sought to limit how the information could be disclosed and used. The opinion states that Weisshaus consented to the proposed confidentiality-order terms.
Court’s Analysis
Rule 26(c) allows a court, for good cause, to protect confidential commercial information by restricting how it is disclosed. The court found that the financial information was confidential commercial information and that disclosure beyond the people identified in the proposed order could harm the Port Authority. The court also noted that the proposed order limited use of the discovery material to this lawsuit rather than barring its disclosure altogether.
Ruling
Judge Richard K. Eaton granted the Port Authority’s motion for a protective order, ECF No. 228. The court modified the proposed order to clarify that people other than court personnel, a party, or a party’s attorney must sign an agreement agreeing to follow the confidentiality order. The court also modified the language governing electronic filing of sealed documents. The proposed confidentiality order, as modified, was ordered to be entered as a separate docket entry.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.