Belen v. Herman
- Alvin Hellerstein
- 1:22-cv-06455
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Belen v. Herman, Judge Hellerstein denied reconsideration except to allow later use of discovery information with permission from him or another judge.
The plaintiffs and anyone seeking permission to use information discovered in this case in another proceeding.
What happened
In Belen v. Herman, the plaintiffs asked Judge Hellerstein to reconsider an August 28, 2024 order adopting disputed language in the parties’ protective order.
That language would restrict a plaintiff who did not prevail from using documents produced in the case in another enforcement action and would require compliance with another paragraph of the protective order. The court relied on a Supreme Court decision recognizing that courts may restrict the use of information obtained through discovery.
Judge Hellerstein denied the motion for reconsideration, except to the extent granted. He stated that information discovered in the case could still be used if he or another judge granted permission, after which the court would set appropriate terms. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 104 and 105.
The detailed version
- Belen v. Herman · No. 1:22-cv-06455
- Alvin Hellerstein
- Sept. 19, 2024
Background
Ariel E. Belen and Rosemarie Herman moved for reconsideration of Judge Hellerstein’s August 28, 2024 order. They objected to language the court had adopted in the parties’ proposed protective order. A protective order is a court order governing the handling and use of information exchanged during discovery.
The disputed provision stated that, if the plaintiff did not prevail in the action, the plaintiff would be restricted from using documents produced by any party in any other enforcement action and would have to comply with paragraph 19 of the protective order.
Court’s analysis
The court relied on Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, in which the Supreme Court held that a protective order limiting the publication, dissemination, or use of information obtained through discovery did not create a First Amendment issue under the circumstances described there. The Supreme Court emphasized the judiciary’s interest in protecting the integrity of discovery and the trial court’s substantial authority to create protective orders.
Judge Hellerstein concluded that adopting a similar restriction on the use of documents obtained during pretrial discovery was appropriate. He added, however, that in the interest of justice, information discovered in this case should remain available for use if he or another judge granted permission. The court stated that it would establish appropriate terms if such permission were granted.
Disposition
The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for reconsideration, except to the extent granted. The clerk was directed to terminate ECF Nos. 104 and 105.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.