Herman v. City of New York

Nature of the Order

This is a discovery protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The order governs confidential information exchanged during the pretrial discovery phase of the case. The defendants named in the order are the City of New York and New York City Police Department Lieutenant Ali Miranda; the plaintiff is Nathanial Herman.

Confidentiality Rules

The order permits a producing person or entity to designate material as “Confidential” only when public disclosure is restricted by law or, in the producer’s good-faith judgment, would harm protected interests. Examples include proprietary, governmental, and privacy interests. The order does not provide blanket protection for every discovery response and does not itself authorize filing material under seal.

Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals. The order generally limits disclosure to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation-support personnel, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and addressees, certain witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a non-disclosure agreement.

The order also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, requesting stricter limits such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment, responding to subpoenas or other compulsory process, and handling personal identifying information. If confidential material is disclosed without authorization, the responsible person or party must notify the disclosing party within five business days after discovering the disclosure and try to prevent further disclosure and obtain the material’s return or destruction.

Privilege and Court Filings

An inadvertent disclosure of information protected by attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product protection, or another applicable protection does not waive that protection under the order. A receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after receiving a privilege claim, while retaining the ability to ask the court to compel production. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, and the disclosing party retains the burden of establishing the claimed protection.

The order does not guarantee that confidential material will be sealed when filed with the court. Parties must follow the court’s procedures for sealing requests and generally must file a public redacted version and an unredacted version under seal when a filing contains confidential discovery material. The court retains discretion over whether to give confidential treatment to material submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding and states that it is unlikely to seal material introduced at trial.

Disposition and Continuing Obligations

The court issued the protective order and attached non-disclosure agreement. The order remains effective after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have done so, although attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep certain archival case files subject to the order. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions for willful violations.

The case information supplied with the materials identifies Andrew Carter as the judge, but the order itself identifies Robyn F. Tarnofsky as the magistrate judge and ends with her signature block. The signature block appears to spell the surname “Tarmmofsky,” creating a name discrepancy in the source materials.