Brenner v. City Of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-06949
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Brenner v. City of New York, Judge Furman ordered a confidentiality framework for discovery but made no finding that the materials were confidential.
Jessica Brenner, the City of New York, Mayor Eric L. Adams, the New York City Department of Correction, Commissioner Louis Molina, Correction Officer Anthony Martin, Jr., their attorneys, and people who receive or handle information covered by the protective order.
What happened
In Jessica Brenner v. City of New York, the parties agreed to rules protecting certain information exchanged during discovery, including personnel records, investigation records, videos, training materials, medical information, and personal identifying information.
The order limits how protected information may be used and shared, requires certain people who receive it to sign confidentiality agreements, and sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations. It also requires a party seeking to file confidential material under seal to first ask the Court for permission.
Judge Jesse Furman ordered the stipulation on April 8, 2025. The Court stressed that it had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential; that issue would be decided later, if necessary, document by document.
The detailed version
- Brenner v. City Of New York · No. 1:24-cv-06949
- Jesse Furman
- Apr. 8, 2025
Background
The parties submitted a confidentiality stipulation and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26. The defendants expected to disclose documents and information to Jessica Brenner, and Brenner could seek discovery from the defendants. The defendants objected to producing certain materials without protections for confidentiality.
Protected information and disclosure limits
The order defines “Confidential Material” to include members of the New York City Department of Correction’s employment or personnel records; investigations by the Department of Correction, the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings, or another government agency; videos, including Genetec and body-worn-camera videos; non-public training materials; information about non-party inmates protected by state or federal law; identifying information concerning individuals allegedly subjected to Correction Officer Anthony Martin, Jr.’s conduct on June 20, 2023; medical or mental-health information; records whose disclosure is restricted by statute; and other information designated in good faith by the defendants or the Court during the litigation.
The order excludes information that Brenner lawfully obtains from another source, through the New York or federal Freedom of Information laws, or that is otherwise publicly available. It does not require production of any category of discovery or waive objections based on discoverability, relevance, admissibility, privilege, or other grounds.
The defendants may redact personal, confidential, privileged, and identifying information before producing documents. Brenner’s attorney may use Confidential Material only to prepare, evaluate, settle, or present Brenner’s case. Disclosure is limited to specified people, such as parties, lawyers, retained experts or consultants, witnesses, deposition or trial personnel, mediators, and the Court, subject to the order’s conditions. People other than the Court generally must review the order and sign a written agreement before receiving the material.
Personal identifying information concerning the individuals allegedly subjected to Martin’s conduct, and other civilian victims or witnesses identified by the defendants, must be kept “attorney’s-eyes-only.” The order states that this information may be used only by Brenner’s attorney, the attorney’s law firm, or agents for this action or for serving subpoenas in this action. It may not be disclosed to Brenner, her family members, or other people, and may not be included in public court filings or deposition materials.
Challenges, filings, and enforcement
Brenner may object in writing to a confidentiality designation. The parties must try to resolve the objection in good faith, and, if they cannot, Brenner may ask the Court to remove the designation within 45 days after the meet-and-confer process ends. The material remains confidential while the objection is pending. The order also addresses inadvertent production of privileged or otherwise protected material, requiring its return or destruction and prohibiting its use.
A party seeking to file material that contains Confidential Material must first apply to the Court for permission to file specific portions under seal. The order does not authorize filing under seal without a prior court order. If confidential information is not material to the issues in a filing and the parties agree that redaction is sufficient, the parties may file redacted documents without another court order. The order allows the Court to impose safeguards if Confidential Material is used at a hearing or trial.
The confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends, including after any appeals. Within 30 days after the action ends, the material generally must be returned to the defendants’ attorneys or destroyed, subject to limited retention of a copy by Brenner’s attorney when required by law or regulation and subject to safeguards. The Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order or impose sanctions for contempt.
Ruling
Judge Jesse Furman ordered the parties’ confidentiality stipulation. The Court expressly stated that it had not reviewed the documents and made no finding that they were confidential. Any such finding would be made, if necessary, through document-by-document review under the Court’s rules and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.