Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 23, 2025

Fiagbe v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation

Judge
Vargas
Docket
1:24-cv-03447
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
10
DiscoveryCivil Procedure
In one sentence

Fiagbe v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation: Judge Vargas entered a protective order governing confidential discovery.

Who this affects

The parties, their counsel and representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, litigation-support providers, third parties providing discovery, and other people subject to the protective order.

What happened

In Fiagbe v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, the parties jointly requested rules to protect confidential information exchanged during discovery.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas’s order limits disclosure of properly designated confidential material, including certain financial, business, personnel, medical, mental-health, and personal information. It allows disclosure only to specified people and generally permits use only for this case and any appeals.

Judge Vargas issued the protective order after finding good cause, while stating that it does not automatically permit documents to be filed under seal. The order also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling accidentally disclosed privileged material, returning or destroying protected discovery, and enforcing violations.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Fiagbe v. New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation · No. 1:24-cv-03447
Judge
Vargas
Date
May 23, 2025

Background

The parties, through counsel, agreed to 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 person producing it or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality.

Protective-order terms

The order applies to the parties, their representatives, agents, experts, consultants, third parties providing discovery, and others with actual or constructive notice of the order. A person receiving discovery material designated “Confidential” generally may not disclose it except as the order permits.

A producing person may designate information as confidential only when its disclosure is restricted by law or would harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. The listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; personnel records; medical and mental-health information; and other categories later given confidential status by the Court.

The order provides procedures for designating documents and deposition testimony. It also allows a producing person to correct an earlier failure to designate information as confidential before trial. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.

Permitted disclosures and use

Confidential material may be shared with the parties and specified insurers and counsel; counsel and their litigation staff; litigation-support vendors; mediators or arbitrators; people identified on a document; potential witnesses; experts and other people providing specialized advice; deposition stenographers; and the Court and its personnel. Several categories of recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this case 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 information or information obtained independently of discovery.

Challenges, sealing, and compelled disclosure

A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request additional limits, such as attorney-eyes-only treatment, by written notice. If the parties cannot promptly agree, they must bring the dispute to the Court under the judge’s individual rules.

The order does not automatically authorize filing confidential material under seal. A party seeking to file documents under seal must first submit a letter-motion explaining the basis for sealing. For a confidential court submission, the parties must publicly file a redacted copy and simultaneously file an unredacted copy under seal with proposed redactions highlighted. The Court retains discretion over confidential treatment and stated that it is unlikely to seal material introduced at trial.

If a person receives a subpoena or other compulsory process for confidential material, that person must notify the producing person before disclosure, generally at least 10 days beforehand when the deadline allows. The producing person may oppose compliance.

Privilege and personal information

The order protects personally identifying information and requires prompt notice and cooperation if a recipient experiences a data breach. An inadvertent disclosure of material subject to attorney-client privilege or attorney-work-product protection does not waive that protection under the order. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure and provide a certification. The producing party must then provide a privilege log, while the receiving party may ask the Court to compel production. The producing party retains the burden of establishing privilege or other protection.

Duration and ruling

The protective order survives the end of the litigation. Within 30 days after final disposition, confidential discovery must generally be returned or destroyed, with written certification, although counsel may retain archival copies of specified case-related materials subject to the order. Willful violations may result in contempt of Court, and the Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order and impose contempt sanctions.

Judge Jeannette A. Vargas found good cause and ordered the agreed confidentiality protections on May 28, 2025.

The authoritative version

Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.