II v. Trooper Michael Moore
Brian E. White II v. Trooper Michael Moore, individually, and as an employee of the New York Police Department
- Philip Halpern
- 7:25-cv-02454
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In White v. Moore, Judge Halpern entered a protective order governing confidential discovery, including access, use, disclosure, filing, and retention.
Brian E. White II, Trooper Michael Moore, their attorneys, authorized litigation personnel, experts and consultants, certain New York State Police employees, court reporters, and the court; the order also addresses confidential information about New York State Police employees and inmates.
What happened
In Brian E. White II v. Trooper Michael Moore, the parties asked the court to establish rules for handling sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The order concerns materials that may affect institutional safety, security, privacy, or legal confidentiality.
The order allows parties to label documents and testimony as confidential, limits who may access them, and restricts their use to this lawsuit. It also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential materials, seeking sealing, protecting privileges, and returning or destroying the materials after the case ends.
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order on November 18, 2025. The order addresses discovery management only and does not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- II v. Trooper Michael Moore · No. 7:25-cv-02454
- Philip Halpern
- Nov. 18, 2025
Nature of the Order
This document is a stipulated confidentiality and protective order. The parties agreed to its terms, and the court entered it as an order. It governs the treatment of information exchanged in discovery; it does not resolve the merits of the lawsuit.
Confidential Material
The order permits a party to designate information, documents, things, or portions of documents as “Confidential Material” when the designating party believes they contain information confidential under state or federal law. The listed categories include:
- Reports and records from the New York State Police Personnel Investigative Unit; - Personally identifying information in New York State Police employee personnel, health-care, mental-health, and labor-relations records, subject to stated exceptions and statutory review requirements; - Personnel files and related disciplinary, performance, counseling, and administrative information; - Maps, blueprints, photographs, drawings, schematics, and descriptions of New York State Police facilities or offices; - Materials that counsel agree should be confidential; - Records that the defendant or the New York State Police believe could compromise the safety or security of a New York State Police office; - Other materials designated confidential by counsel and not timely challenged; and - Testimony about the covered documents and information.
The order separately permits disclosure to the plaintiff of the plaintiff’s own medical records, mental-health records after the stated statutory review, and the plaintiff’s own statements to the New York State Police in connection with an investigation.
Challenges to Designations
A party objecting to a confidentiality designation must do so in writing within 30 days after receiving the material. Counsel must try in good faith to resolve the dispute. If they cannot, the objecting party must ask the court to remove the designation within 60 days after the initial objection. The material remains confidential while the dispute is pending, and the designating party bears the burden of showing that the designation is proper.
Deposition transcripts are treated as confidential in their entirety for 30 days after the final transcript becomes available. During that period, either party may designate particular pages, lines, or related exhibits as confidential. Material not designated during that period will not remain confidential under that provision. An inadvertent failure to designate may be corrected by written notice as soon as practicable.
Access and Use
Access is limited to the parties; their attorneys; certain employees and contractors of their law firms; experts and consultants who receive and sign the required certification; qualifying New York State Police employees; court reporters; and the court. Confidential Material may not be disclosed to unauthorized people and may be used only as necessary for this lawsuit, including any appeal.
The order generally bars disclosure to a person who is or was a parolee in New York State Police custody, except for the specified materials the plaintiff has previously reviewed, unless defense counsel consents in writing or the court orders disclosure.
Privacy, Privilege, and Court Filings
The order requires redaction of specified identifying information in certain New York State Police employee and inmate records when disclosure would violate the cited state or federal laws. It does not waive any privilege. It also provides that disclosure connected with the lawsuit will not waive privilege or protection under Federal Rule of Evidence 502(d), and allows the producing party to demand return of inadvertently disclosed protected material.
Before filing papers containing Confidential Material, plaintiff’s counsel must notify defense counsel, generally at least 10 business days before filing, so defense counsel may ask the court to direct that the materials be filed under seal. The order states that any sealed filing must comply with the court’s rules and that sealing is not automatic. The court retains discretion over confidential treatment of discovery submitted in connection with motions or other proceedings and states that it may be unlikely to seal or keep confidential discovery introduced as trial evidence.
End of the Case
Within 30 days after the lawsuit ends, including any appeals, plaintiff’s counsel must either return the Confidential Material and copies to defense counsel or notify defense counsel in writing that the material has been destroyed.
Disposition
Judge Philip M. Halpern entered the parties’ stipulated confidentiality and protective order on November 18, 2025. The order manages discovery and confidentiality; the provided text contains no ruling on the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.