Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals
- Vargas
- 1:24-cv-00742
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals, Judge Vargas terminated a protective-order motion and required the parties to refile it following court procedures.
The parties and other persons who may receive discovery materials in the case, including their counsel, representatives, experts, consultants, vendors, witnesses, mediators, and third parties providing discovery, are affected by the court’s filing instructions and the model protective-order terms.
What happened
In Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals, the parties asked the court to approve a proposed protective order for confidential discovery materials. The order does not describe the underlying dispute.
Judge Vargas explained that the proposed order had to follow the court’s model protective order as closely as possible. The parties also had to file it electronically, certify that they adopted the model without changes or explain any changes, and attach a comparison showing alterations.
Judge Vargas directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the parties’ letter motion, ECF No. 26. The opinion includes the court’s model protective-order terms, which address confidentiality designations, permitted disclosures, challenges to confidentiality, filing under seal, inadvertent privileged disclosures, and return or destruction of materials.
The detailed version
- Liederbach v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:24-cv-00742
- Vargas
- Feb. 18, 2025
Background
On February 11, 2025, the parties filed a letter motion seeking execution of a proposed protective order. A protective order is a court order governing the handling of specified information exchanged during discovery. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses in the underlying case.
Court’s instructions
Judge Vargas stated that, under the court’s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, a party seeking a protective order must submit a proposed order that conforms as closely as possible to the court’s Model Protective Order. The proposed order must be filed electronically under Rule 13.18 of the Southern District of New York’s electronic-filing rules.
The parties also had to file an electronic letter that either certified they adopted the court’s model without alteration or explained the reasons for any alterations. If they changed the model, they were required to attach a blackline showing all changes.
Disposition
The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF No. 26, the parties’ letter motion. The text includes a model protective order, but the operative order does not state that the parties’ submitted proposal was entered as the protective order. The model provides procedures for designating discovery material as confidential, limiting disclosure, objecting to confidentiality designations, requesting additional restrictions, filing confidential material with the court, protecting personally identifying information, addressing inadvertently disclosed privileged material, and returning or destroying confidential material after the case ends. It also states that willful violations could result in punishment for contempt of court.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.