Lewis v. The City of New York
Diana Lewis v. The City of New York, The Office of the Bronx District Attorney, Yael Levy in her individual capacity, Kim Hernandez in her individual capacity, and Gina Mignola in her individual capacity
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:25-cv-02655
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Diana Lewis v. The City of New York, Judge Ramos entered a protective order governing confidential discovery and related disclosures.
Diana Lewis, the City of New York, the Office of the Bronx District Attorney, Yael Levy, Kim Hernandez, Gina Mignola, and other people or entities covered by the protective order, including counsel, experts, witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and the court.
What happened
Diana Lewis v. The City of New York concerns the handling of confidential information during discovery. The parties asked the court to issue a protective order because the case’s discovery could include nonpublic information whose disclosure could cause harm.
The order limits how confidential discovery material may be disclosed and used. It allows disclosure to specified people, including the parties, lawyers, certain witnesses, experts, and the court, generally after required confidentiality agreements. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling privileged information, filing documents that contain confidential material, protecting personally identifying information, and returning or destroying confidential material after the case ends.
Judge Edgardo Ramos found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow these requirements. The order does not decide the underlying claims, waive objections or privileges, determine whether evidence is admissible, or automatically allow documents to be filed under seal.
The detailed version
- Lewis v. The City of New York · No. 1:25-cv-02655
- Edgardo Ramos
- Aug. 20, 2026
Background
The parties submitted a stipulated request for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve confidential documents or information, and the court found good cause to issue a tailored order for the pretrial phase of the case. The order is procedural and does not address the merits of Diana Lewis’s claims.
Confidentiality Rules
The order defines “Discovery Material” as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing person or entity may designate material “Confidential” only when public disclosure is restricted by law or, in the producing person’s or entity’s good-faith judgment, would harm protected interests. The order identifies possible protected interests including proprietary, governmental, and privacy interests.
People receiving confidential material generally may not disclose it except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties, insurers and their counsel, counsel retained for the action and their support staff, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators who sign a nondisclosure agreement, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts, deposition reporters, and the court. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
For purposes of the order, a party proceeding without a lawyer is treated as counsel of record and may access confidential discovery material. The order does not allow a heightened designation such as “attorneys’ eyes only” to block that party’s access unless the court enters a specific order after notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Challenges, Sealing, Privilege, and Personal Information
A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice explaining the grounds. The designating person has the burden of showing that the material deserves confidential treatment, and the parties must first try to resolve the dispute in good faith. A party may also request additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation in extraordinary circumstances.
The order states that confidential designation does not automatically permit filing material under seal. A party seeking to file under seal must follow the court’s filing procedures, and the parties must publicly file redacted versions of confidential court submissions while filing unredacted versions under seal. The court retains discretion over confidential treatment and states that it is unlikely to seal material introduced as evidence at trial without the required findings.
The order also provides that disclosure of attorney-client privileged or work-product-protected material does not waive the protection. After a privilege claim, the receiving party generally must return or destroy the material within five business days and provide a certification; the producing party must then provide a privilege log. The receiving party may ask the court to compel production. Personally identifying information must be kept securely, and a recipient experiencing a data breach must immediately notify the producing person and cooperate in addressing it.
Duration and Disposition
The protective order continues after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, confidential discovery material generally must be returned or destroyed, with written certification, although counsel may retain specified archival materials subject to continuing confidentiality obligations. Willful violations may result in contempt sanctions, and the court retains jurisdiction as necessary to enforce the order.
Ruling
Judge Edgardo Ramos ordered the parties and other persons covered by the order to follow its terms. The order did not grant or deny a claim, decide liability, determine admissibility, or resolve any discovery dispute beyond establishing these procedures.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.