Mohan v. ATR India Limited and JFK International Air Terminal LLC
- Vargas
- 1:25-cv-03641
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Mandira Mohan v. ATR India, Judge Vargas issued a protective order governing confidential discovery materials in the lawsuit.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, litigation-support providers, third parties producing discovery, and other people with notice of the protective order.
What happened
Mandira Mohan v. ATR India Limited and JFK International Air Terminal LLC concerns the parties’ agreement to protect certain nonpublic information exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause for a confidentiality order because disclosure could harm the producing party or a third party owed confidentiality.
The order limits who may receive information marked confidential and allows its use only to prosecute or defend this case and any appeals. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling privileged information disclosed by mistake, protecting personal identifying information, and returning or destroying confidential materials after the case ends.
The court issued the stipulated protective order on September 15, 2025. Judge Jeannette A. Vargas also stated that confidential discovery is not automatically eligible for filing under seal and that willful violations could lead to contempt penalties.
The detailed version
- Mohan v. ATR India Limited and JFK International Air Terminal LLC · No. 1:25-cv-03641
- Vargas
- Sept. 15, 2025
Background
The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve confidential documents or information and that public disclosure could harm a producing person or a third party to whom a confidentiality duty was owed. The court found good cause to issue a tailored order for the pretrial phase of the case.
Main terms
The order covers discovery material produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing person may designate as confidential only information whose disclosure is restricted by law or would harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Listed examples include previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, and personal or intimate information.
Recipients generally may not disclose confidential discovery material except to specified people, including the parties and their counsel, insurers and their counsel, litigation-support vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Several categories of recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, competitive, or other litigation purposes.
The order establishes procedures for designating deposition testimony and exhibits, correcting an earlier failure to designate material as confidential, and objecting to a confidentiality designation. It also provides a process for handling discovery that is subject to a third party’s confidentiality obligations.
Sealing, privilege, and personal information
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, and the court retains discretion over whether to grant confidential treatment. The parties must publicly file a redacted version and separately file the unredacted version under seal when required by the order.
Personally identifying information must be kept secure and confidential. If a receiving person experiences a data breach, that person must promptly notify the producing person and cooperate in addressing the breach. An inadvertent disclosure of attorney-client privileged or attorney work-product material does not itself waive the protection. The receiving party generally must return or destroy the material within five business days after a claim of inadvertent disclosure, subject to procedures allowing a request for court review or an order compelling production.
Disposition
The court issued the stipulated protective order. It remains effective after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, recipients must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have done so, although attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep certain archival materials that remain subject to the order. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the order, and willful violations may result in contempt punishment.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.