Martin v. CitiBank, N.A.

Background

Kathleen Martin brought this action against Citibank, N.A., and Anand Selva. The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose public disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality.

The court found good cause to issue a tailored confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case. The order states that it does not protect every discovery disclosure automatically, does not give the parties a right to file information under seal, does not waive objections or privileges, and does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.

Terms of the Order

The order restricts disclosure of discovery material marked “Confidential.” Covered information may include:

- Citibank’s nonpublic regulatory-compliance efforts and strategies, including confidential supervisory information; - previously undisclosed financial information; - previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; - previously undisclosed business, product-development, or marketing plans; - personal or intimate information about an individual; and - other information later given confidential status by the court.

Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified people, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation staff, approved service providers, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified on a document, potential witnesses, experts and consultants, deposition stenographers, and the court. Many outside recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

The order establishes procedures for designating documents and deposition testimony as confidential, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, and objecting to a confidentiality designation. It also permits a party to request stricter limits, such as attorney-eyes-only treatment, when justified.

Special Protections and Court Filings

The order provides special handling for confidential supervisory information. Such information may be produced only as authorized by the applicable regulator or the court and must be treated as directed by that regulator or the court. The order also addresses third-party confidentiality obligations and requires notice before responsive information is produced if the third party does not seek court protection within the specified period.

Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. A party may still use its own information and information obtained independently of discovery. A person receiving confidential material may also disclose it when required by a lawful subpoena, other compulsory process, law, or a government agency, subject to notice requirements.

A party seeking to file confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal with proposed redactions highlighted. The order emphasizes that confidential designation alone does not justify sealing and that the court retains discretion over sealing. It also states that the court is unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial.

Privilege, Return of Materials, and Enforcement

If privileged or attorney-work-product material is accidentally disclosed, the disclosure does not waive the protection. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure and provide counsel’s certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to compel production. The disclosing party retains the burden of proving that the material is privileged or otherwise protected.

The order continues after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, confidential discovery material generally must be returned or destroyed, with written certification. Attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions for willful violations.

Disposition

The court issued the stipulated protective order. This was a discovery and confidentiality ruling; the opinion did not resolve the parties’ underlying claims or defenses.