Ortega v. Zoni Language Centers, Inc.
- Katharine Parker
- 1:24-cv-08223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Ortega v. Zoni Language Centers, Judge Parker scheduled a conference about plaintiffs’ request for a confidentiality order in discovery.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case, including potential class members whose personnel records may be exchanged in discovery, were affected by the scheduled conference and the unresolved confidentiality dispute.
What happened
In Ortega v. Zoni Language Centers, the plaintiffs asked the court to address a dispute over protecting personnel files and other sensitive records exchanged during discovery. They said they had proposed the court’s model confidentiality order, but the defendants had not agreed to it.
The plaintiffs argued that the records could include private employment and personal information belonging to plaintiffs and potential class members. They asked for assurances that the records would be used only for this lawsuit.
Judge Katharine H. Parker scheduled a telephone conference for April 28, 2025, to discuss the discovery dispute. The order did not decide whether to enter the proposed confidentiality order or resolve the parties’ underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Ortega v. Zoni Language Centers, Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-08223
- Katharine Parker
- Apr. 17, 2025
Background
The plaintiffs’ attorney asked Judge Parker for a discovery conference under the judge’s individual rules. The dispute concerned whether the parties should adopt a confidentiality order governing documents exchanged before trial. The plaintiffs said they had sent the defendants the court’s model confidentiality order on March 13, 2025, but the defendants did not agree to adopt it. The parties discussed the issue again during a telephone meeting on April 3, 2025, and the defendants maintained their position.
The plaintiffs said the discovery could include their personnel files and those of potential class members. They argued that these records could contain sensitive information and should be used only for this lawsuit. The proposed order would have established procedures for marking information confidential, limiting who could receive it, protecting personally identifying information, preserving privilege, and returning or destroying confidential materials after the litigation. The text supplied to the court was a proposed model order; the opinion does not state that the court adopted it.
Court’s Action
Judge Katharine H. Parker scheduled a telephone conference for April 28, 2025, at noon to discuss the discovery dispute. The order did not rule on the proposed confidentiality order, decide the parties’ claims, or determine whether any specific document was confidential. The opinion therefore reflects a scheduling and discovery-management order rather than a decision on the merits.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.