Parente v. Museum of Modern Art
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:23-cv-09431
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Parente v. Museum of Modern Art, Judge Lehrburger entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their use.
The parties, their representatives, counsel, insurers, experts, consultants, witnesses, litigation-support providers, third parties producing discovery, and other people with actual or constructive notice of the protective order.
What happened
In Parente v. Museum of Modern Art, the parties agreed that discovery would involve nonpublic information whose disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owed confidentiality. They asked the court to establish rules protecting that information.
The order permits confidentiality designations for limited categories, including certain financial, business, personal, personnel, medical, and identifying information. It restricts disclosure to specified people and requires some recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements. Confidential material may be used only for this lawsuit and related appeals, and the order does not automatically permit filing material under seal.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the confidentiality rules. The order also addresses challenges to confidentiality designations, inadvertent disclosure of privileged material, return or destruction of protected material after the case, and possible contempt for willful violations.
The detailed version
- Parente v. Museum of Modern Art · No. 1:23-cv-09431
- Robert Lehrburger
- Mar. 20, 2025
What the court addressed
The parties, through counsel, agreed to a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets limits on how information exchanged during discovery may be handled. The court found good cause to issue a tailored confidentiality order because discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose public disclosure could cause harm to a producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality.
Confidential information
The order permits a producing person to designate as confidential only information whose disclosure is restricted by law or would harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; and personal or intimate information, such as personnel files, performance evaluations, Social Security numbers, compensation information, tax documents, nonpublic home contact information, medical records, and health-related information. The court may also give other information confidential status.
The order explains how confidential designations must be made for ordinary discovery materials and deposition transcripts. A party may later object to a designation or request additional limits, such as an attorneys'-eyes-only restriction in extraordinary circumstances. If the parties cannot resolve the dispute, they must bring it to the court under the court's individual rules.
Who may receive and use the material
People subject to the order may disclose confidential discovery material only to specified recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation staff, certain litigation-support vendors, mediators or arbitrators, designated witnesses, experts and consultants, deposition reporters, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
Recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order does not restrict a person's use of that person's own documents or information, or information obtained independently of discovery. It also permits disclosure when required by a lawful subpoena, other compulsory process, law, or a government agency, subject to advance notice when possible.
Sealing, privilege, and personally identifying information
The order states that a confidentiality designation does not automatically authorize filing material under seal. A party seeking to file documents under seal must first submit a letter-motion explaining the basis for sealing, and confidential court submissions generally must include a public redacted version and a sealed unredacted version. The court retains discretion over confidential treatment and states that it is unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial.
The order requires secure handling of personally identifying information and prompt notice and cooperation if a recipient experiences a data breach. If privileged or attorney-work-product material is inadvertently disclosed, the receiving party must return or destroy it within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure and provide a certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, while the receiving party may ask the court to order production. The disclosing party retains the burden of establishing that the material is privileged or protected.
Duration and ruling
The order remains binding after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, recipients must return or, with the producing person's permission, destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have done so, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for attorneys specifically retained in the action. Willful violations may result in contempt of court, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions.
Judge Robert W. Lehrburger signed the order on March 20, 2025. The opinion is a discovery and confidentiality ruling; it does not decide the underlying claims or defenses in the lawsuit.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.