Richardson v. New York State Department of Corrections Community Service
- Vincent Briccetti
- 7:18-cv-05345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Richardson v. Hinds, Judge Briccetti approved a protective order governing confidential discovery materials in the federal lawsuit.
The parties Fred W. Richardson and Evita Hinds, their counsel and representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, vendors, third parties providing discovery, court personnel, and other people with actual or constructive notice of the order.
What happened
Fred W. Richardson v. Evita Hinds is a federal lawsuit in which the parties, through their lawyers, agreed that certain sensitive information exchanged during discovery should receive confidential treatment. The opinion does not describe the underlying claims.
The order limits disclosure of designated confidential discovery materials to specified people and requires witnesses, experts, and certain others to sign nondisclosure agreements. It also governs redactions and sealed court filings, allows parties to challenge confidentiality designations, limits use of the materials to this lawsuit and related appeals, and requires most recipients to return or destroy the materials after the case ends.
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti found good cause and ordered the parties and other covered people to follow the confidentiality terms, with possible contempt consequences for violations. The order concerns discovery management and does not decide the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- Richardson v. New York State Department of Corrections Community Service · No. 7:18-cv-05345
- Vincent Briccetti
- Nov. 25, 2019
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and personally sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The parties agreed to the order's terms, and the court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase. The opinion does not state the underlying claims or resolve them.
Confidentiality designations
A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes contains personal or intimate information about an individual. The producing party or its counsel must clearly mark the protected portions and provide a copy for public use with the confidential information redacted. Deposition testimony and exhibits may be designated during the deposition or within 30 days after it ends; during that 30-day period, the entire transcript must be treated as confidential.
A producing party may later designate material that was initially produced without a confidentiality designation by notifying prior recipients in writing. The order does not waive objections to discovery, attorney-client privilege or other protections, or objections to the evidence's admissibility at trial.
Permitted disclosures and use
Confidential material may be disclosed only to categories listed in the order, including the parties, their insurers and insurer counsel, counsel retained for the case, assigned vendors, certain mediators or arbitrators, people identified as document recipients, potential witnesses, experts or specialized advisers, deposition transcribers, and the court. Before disclosure to specified witnesses, experts, mediators, or arbitrators, the recipient must receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement.
Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. They must take reasonable precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. After final resolution of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the materials within 60 days and certify that they retained no copies or other reproductions. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of specified case-related materials, which remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.
Court filings and challenges
A filing containing confidential discovery material must be filed under seal, and a publicly filed version must redact only the confidential material itself. A party seeking continued sealing must file a letter brief and supporting declaration providing a particularized justification. The court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or other proceeding, and the order warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.
A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice stating the grounds. If the dispute is not promptly resolved, the parties must present it to the court under its individual practices. A party may also request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys'-eyes-only treatment, by written notice explaining the grounds. The order permits disclosure in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process, subject to notice to the producing party when reasonably possible and, if time permits, at least 10 days before disclosure.
Ruling
Judge Vincent L. Briccetti ordered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. This was a discovery-management order; it did not decide the parties' underlying legal claims.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.