Dalton v. City of New York
- Laura Swain
- 1:22-cv-06652
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Dalton v. City of New York, Judge Lehrburger issued a protective order governing confidential discovery and its disclosure.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, experts, consultants, certain witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and other persons who receive or have notice of confidential discovery material.
What happened
Dalton v. City of New York is an ongoing case in which the parties agreed that discovery would involve confidential information whose public disclosure could cause harm.
The court approved a protective order limiting how designated confidential discovery materials may be disclosed and used. It allows disclosure to specified people, including the parties, lawyers, experts, certain witnesses, and the court, and requires confidentiality agreements in some circumstances. The order also addresses objections to confidentiality designations, inadvertent disclosure of privileged material, personally identifying information, court filings under seal, and the return or destruction of confidential materials after the case ends.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger found good cause for the order and warned that willful violations could result in contempt-of-court punishment.
The detailed version
- Dalton v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-06652
- Laura Swain
- Nov. 27, 2024
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve nonpublic and confidential documents or information, and that public disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owing a duty of confidentiality. The court found good cause for a tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Confidential information
The order permits a producing person to designate as confidential only material whose disclosure is restricted by law or that, in the designating person’s good-faith judgment, could harm business, commercial, financial, governmental, personal, privacy, or proprietary interests. Examples include previously undisclosed financial information, business plans, trade secrets, sensitive governmental information, and personal or intimate information.
The order does not create additional confidentiality duties for information already public, already possessed by the receiving party in the form produced, properly known through other means, or obtained independently from a rightful source on a nonconfidential basis. It also states that the order does not waive objections to discovery, waive privilege or other protection, decide whether evidence may be admitted at trial, or automatically entitle material to be filed under seal.
Disclosure and use limits
Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. Permitted recipients include the parties and certain insurers, counsel and their support staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, specified persons connected to a document, certain witnesses, experts and consultants, deposition reporters, and the court. Some recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement, which counsel must retain and produce at specified times.
A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial. If the parties cannot resolve the objection promptly, they must present the dispute to the court under its individual rules. The order also permits production in response to a public-records request, subpoena, other compulsory process, or legal requirement, but generally requires advance written notice to the producing person when permitted.
Sealing, privilege, and personal information
A party seeking to file confidential material under seal must first submit a letter-motion explaining the basis for sealing. The order emphasizes that confidential designation does not guarantee sealing and that the court retains discretion over confidential treatment of material submitted in connection with motions or proceedings. It states that the court is unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial.
The order requires secure handling of personally identifying information, such as Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passwords, and information that could be used for identity theft. A receiving person experiencing a data breach must immediately notify the producing person and cooperate in addressing it.
If privileged or work-product-protected material is disclosed, the disclosure generally does not waive the protection. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim is made and provide counsel’s certification. The producing party must then provide a privilege log within five business days after that certification. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production, and the producing party retains the burden of establishing privilege or protection.
Duration and enforcement
The protective order continues after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have retained no copies or reproductions, subject to an archival-copy exception for attorneys specifically retained for the action. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions for willful violations.
Disposition
The court entered the stipulated protective order. This was a discovery and confidentiality ruling; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims in Dalton v. City of New York.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.