Sapp v. City of New York

Background

The defendants intended to disclose documents and information to Juandisha Sapp, and Sapp could seek documents from the defendants through discovery. The parties agreed that certain information should receive confidential treatment, and the court entered their confidentiality stipulation and protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Information Covered

The order defines confidential material to include New York City Police Department employment and personnel records; disciplinary histories and records from the Civilian Complaint Review Board, the Police Department's Internal Affairs Bureau, and other government agencies; body-camera footage, audio recordings, and other electronically stored information; government training materials and nonpublic portions of certain guides and manuals; and personal identifying information, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, passwords, and similar information exchanged during discovery. The defendants may also designate other documents or information as confidential in good faith during the litigation.

Information is not confidential under the order if Sapp lawfully obtained it from another source or if it is publicly available. The order does not require either side to produce any particular discovery and does not waive objections based on relevance, discoverability, admissibility, privilege, or other grounds. The defendants may redact personal, confidential, or privileged information before producing documents.

Use and Disclosure

Sapp's attorney may use confidential material only to prepare, evaluate, settle, or present Sapp's case. Before disclosure to permitted people—such as a party, retained expert, deposition or trial witness, court reporter, videographer, or the court—the recipient generally must review the order and sign a written agreement not to use or further disclose the material except as allowed by the order.

The order provides procedures for designating documents and deposition testimony as confidential, including designations made after production. If Sapp objects to a designation, the parties must try to resolve the dispute in good faith. If they cannot, Sapp may ask the court to remove the designation within the time stated in the order; the material remains confidential while the dispute is pending.

The order also addresses inadvertently produced privileged or protected information. Sapp must immediately return or destroy such material, provide a certification through counsel, and not use it. If confidential material is made public or is discussed in a public representation, the defendants' attorneys may seek expedited relief from the court.

Court Filings and After the Case

The order does not itself permit filing documents under seal. A party must obtain a further order addressing the specific material and support the request with affidavits and legal briefing. The order also permits certain agreed redactions when confidential information is not material to the issues in a court filing and preserves the requirements of Rule 5.2 concerning sensitive information.

The confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends, including any appeals. Within 30 days after termination of the action, most confidential material and copies must be returned to the defendants' attorneys or destroyed, subject to the order's exception allowing Sapp's attorney to retain certain copies or work product when required by law or regulation and protected by appropriate safeguards. Judge Kevin Castel retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose sanctions for contempt.