Gonzalez v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, LLC
- Clarke
- 1:24-cv-00447
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Gonzalez v. Family Dollar, Judge Clarke approved a confidentiality order limiting discovery-material use and disclosure to this litigation.
Betty Gonzalez, Family Dollar Stores of New York, LLC d/b/a Family Dollar, their attorneys, and other permitted recipients or third parties who receive materials covered by the order.
What happened
In Gonzalez v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, LLC, Betty Gonzalez and Family Dollar agreed to rules for handling confidential information that may be exchanged in the case. The order concerns discovery materials, not the underlying claims.
The agreement generally limits confidential materials to use in prosecuting or defending this case or an appeal. It allows disclosure to specified people, including counsel, certain employees, experts, witnesses, court personnel, and court reporters, subject to stated conditions. Highly sensitive information may be marked “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and disclosed only to outside counsel or others approved by counsel or the court.
The court ordered the agreement on June 19, 2024. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke also stated that parties must follow the court’s rules for filing materials under seal and that confidential discovery materials are not automatically entitled to remain sealed.
The detailed version
- Gonzalez v. Family Dollar Stores of New York, LLC · No. 1:24-cv-00447
- Clarke
- June 10, 2024
Nature of the Order
Betty Gonzalez and Family Dollar Stores of New York, LLC, doing business as Family Dollar, submitted a stipulated confidentiality agreement and consent order. The agreement governs documents, responses to discovery requests, deposition testimony, and other information produced in the case that a party designates as “Confidential.” The court entered the order after the parties agreed to it.
Confidential Material
The agreement limits the use of confidential material to prosecuting or defending the case and any appeal. Unless the agreement, the law, or the producing party’s written consent allows otherwise, a receiving party may disclose confidential material only to specified recipients and only as necessary for the litigation. Those recipients include the receiving party and certain affiliated personnel, counsel and assisting staff, experts and prospective witnesses who agree in writing to follow the agreement, court personnel, and court reporters.
The agreement identifies categories that may qualify for confidential treatment, including nonparty employee personnel information; previously nonpublic Family Dollar financial, business, product-development, or marketing information; personal or intimate information; and an individual’s medical, health, or financial information. The agreement also permits a party or third party to designate highly sensitive information as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” Such material may be disclosed only to the receiving party’s outside counsel, unless the producing party’s counsel agrees in advance or the court orders disclosure.
Challenges and Later Handling
A party may object to a confidentiality or Attorneys’ Eyes Only designation before trial. If the parties cannot resolve the objection promptly, the designating party’s counsel must arrange a telephone call with the court regarding the discovery dispute. The material remains confidential unless the court orders otherwise. After the case and any appeals conclude, the producing party may request destruction of confidential material within 30 days, subject to the agreement’s exception for certain electronically stored information held by counsel under information-safeguarding procedures.
Court’s Ruling
The order states “SO ORDERED” and adopts the parties’ confidentiality agreement. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke separately reminded the parties to follow the court’s individual rule concerning sealed filings. The court stated that documents may be unsealed unless the court makes specific findings showing that sealing is essential to protect higher values and is narrowly tailored, and it emphasized that confidential discovery material is not automatically entitled to be filed under seal. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.