Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:24-cv-06101
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., Judge Gorenstein entered a protective order governing confidential discovery and its use.
Nafeesa Syeed, Bloomberg L.P., their counsel and representatives, and other people who receive or have notice of protected discovery material.
What happened
In Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P., the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and sensitive information they might exchange during discovery. The court found good cause for a tailored order.
The order limits disclosure of information marked confidential or attorneys’ eyes only. It describes what information may receive those designations, who may access it, how challenges and court filings must be handled, and when the information must be returned or destroyed.
Judge Gorenstein entered the protective order on October 15, 2024. The order governs discovery and does not decide the underlying claims or the admissibility of evidence.
The detailed version
- Syeed v. Bloomberg L.P. · No. 1:24-cv-06101
- Gregory Woods
- Oct. 15, 2024
Background
The parties requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) for nonpublic, competitively sensitive, and individually sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order covering the pretrial phase of the case.
Order
The order creates two levels of protection: “Confidential” and “Confidential-Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” A producing party may designate information as Confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, or personal or intimate information, including personnel records. Attorneys’ Eyes Only protection may apply to highly sensitive information when the harm from disclosure to the requesting party outweighs the ability of that party’s counsel to evaluate and use the information. Examples include personnel and medical information and commercially sensitive nonpublic information.
The order restricts who may receive protected material. Confidential material may be shared with the parties, their insurers and counsel, counsel and litigation support personnel, certain vendors, approved mediators, authors or recipients of a document, certain witnesses and experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Attorneys’ Eyes Only material may be shared with a narrower group, generally excluding the parties and witnesses, unless the parties agree otherwise in writing. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The order also establishes procedures for marking deposition testimony and exhibits, correcting designations made after production, objecting to confidentiality designations, and filing protected material with the court. Parties must publicly file redacted versions and seek permission to file unredacted versions under seal. The court stated that it had not made a finding that any particular discovery material was confidential and might not seal material introduced at trial.
Protected material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. Recipients must take precautions against disclosure and generally must return or destroy the material within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for counsel. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose sanctions for contempt.
Disposition
The court entered the confidentiality and protective order. It was a discovery-related procedural order and did not resolve the merits of Nafeesa Syeed’s claims against Bloomberg L.P. Gabriel W. Gorenstein, United States Magistrate Judge, signed the order on October 15, 2024.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.