Diallo v. Helene Fuld College of Nursing

Background

Djenaba Diallo sued Helene Fuld College of Nursing. The opinion is a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order concerning discovery. The parties, through counsel, requested an order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information they might disclose during discovery. They agreed to the order's terms, and the court found good cause for issuing a tailored confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case.

Terms of the Order

The order applies to the parties and their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, people acting with them, and other people who have actual notice of the order. It requires them to follow the order's restrictions, enforceable through contempt of court.

A producing party may designate only portions of discovery material as confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes those portions contain specified information, including previously undisclosed financial information; previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; previously undisclosed business, product-development, or marketing information; personal or intimate information about an individual; or another category that the court later gives confidential status.

The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material, including deposition testimony and exhibits. A producing party may correct an earlier failure to designate material by giving written notice and providing replacement versions within two business days. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.

Confidential material may be disclosed only to listed recipients, including the parties and their insurers; counsel and their support staff; outside vendors; mediators or arbitrators; people identified as authors or recipients of a document; certain witnesses; experts and other people providing specialized advice; deposition transcription staff; and the court. Mediators, witnesses, experts, and certain other recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

The order says the court has not determined that any particular material is actually confidential and retains discretion over whether to provide confidential treatment. It also warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed. Parties must publicly file redacted versions of confidential court submissions and separately seek permission to file unredacted versions under seal, supported by a particularized justification.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request additional disclosure limits. If the parties cannot promptly resolve the issue, they must present the dispute to the court under the court's individual practices. Confidential material may be used only for prosecuting or defending this action and related appeals, subject to the order's provisions concerning a party's own documents and information. The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoenas, other compulsory process, law, or government agencies.

Ruling and Effect

The court ordered the parties and other covered people to comply with the protective order. Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party's permission, destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of specified litigation materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions. Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the order on May 16, 2025.