El-Nashar v. NADAP, Inc.
- Sarah Netburn
- 1:25-cv-04403
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In El-Nashar v. NADAP, Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered a confidentiality stipulation, but made no finding that documents were confidential or automatically sealable.
The parties and their counsel are bound by procedures governing the designation, use, disclosure, challenge, filing, and return or destruction of confidential litigation materials; the order does not itself determine that any document is confidential or may be filed under seal.
What happened
In El-Nashar v. NADAP, Inc., Siveem El-Nashar and NADAP, Inc., Meryl Kordower, and Dania Ramos agreed to procedures for handling confidential information exchanged during the lawsuit. The agreement covers personal information, medical and tax records, employee information, and certain business information.
The stipulation limits use of designated information to this lawsuit and restricts disclosure to specified people, such as the parties, lawyers, witnesses, experts, mediators, and the court. It also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling accidentally disclosed privileged material, responding to subpoenas, and returning or destroying confidential material after the case ends.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the stipulation but clarified that the court had not reviewed the documents and was not deciding whether they were actually confidential. He also stated that the parties could not file documents under seal without a separate court order.
The detailed version
- El-Nashar v. NADAP, Inc. · No. 1:25-cv-04403
- Sarah Netburn
- July 10, 2025
Background
Siveem El-Nashar and defendants NADAP, Inc., Meryl Kordower, and Dania Ramos submitted a stipulation governing confidential information and documents exchanged in the lawsuit. The stipulation allows a party to designate information as confidential when the party reasonably and in good faith believes it contains personal or intimate information, medical or tax records, employee information, or previously undisclosed information about NADAP’s business practices, clients, or business partners.
Terms of the Stipulation
Information designated as confidential may be used only to litigate this lawsuit, subject to an exception allowing a party to use its own produced information for personal or business purposes. Disclosure is limited to specified qualified people, including the court and jury, the parties and necessary current or former employees, counsel and litigation-support personnel, deponents, witnesses, possible witnesses, experts, mediators, and court reporters.
The stipulation establishes a process for challenging a confidentiality designation. The challenging party must provide a written objection, and the designating party must respond within 14 days. The parties must then attempt to resolve the dispute before the designating party presents it to the court by letter. The material remains treated as confidential while the dispute is pending.
The stipulation also addresses filing confidential material with the court, subpoenas, privileges, and accidental disclosure of privileged material. It says confidential material should be filed under seal when required by court procedures or, if no procedures exist, until a further court order. It provides for the return or destruction of confidential material after the litigation ends.
Court’s Order
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the stipulation, but expressly stated that the court had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that they were confidential. Any such determination would be made later, if necessary, through review of individual documents and subject to the presumption that judicial documents are publicly accessible. The court also declined to order any provision that would allow the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.