Sadat v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-05053
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 14
In Sadat v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University, Judge Furman entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and limiting automatic sealing.
The parties and nonparties who produce or receive discovery in the litigation, including their counsel, experts, consultants, witnesses, certain university employees, and the court.
What happened
In Sadat v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University, the parties agreed that discovery and other case proceedings could involve private or sensitive information, including employment records, health information, investigations, and university hiring practices.
The order sets rules for marking information as confidential or highly confidential, limits how it may be used and who may receive it, and allows parties to challenge confidentiality designations. The protections continue after the case ends, and covered materials generally must be returned or destroyed when the litigation concludes.
Judge Jesse Furman entered the protective order on January 22, 2020, but stated that the court had not decided whether any particular document was confidential. The court also did not approve any provision allowing the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order.
The detailed version
- Sadat v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University · No. 1:19-cv-05053
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 22, 2020
Background
The parties stipulated to a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits a court to protect information disclosed during discovery for good cause. The order applies to discovery and other materials produced or disclosed by parties and nonparties in the litigation, including pleadings, document productions, interrogatory answers, deposition testimony, hearing or trial testimony, and inspections.
The order identifies categories that may be designated as “Highly Confidential” or “Confidential.” Highly confidential material may include documents and information about current, former, or prospective State University of New York employees or residents, employment or residency applications, reviews, evaluations, personnel files, resident-selection procedures, and confidential trade secrets or proprietary information. Confidential material may include complaints, grievances, investigations, personal health or disability information, mental-health or psychiatric information, private information about nonparties, information that the university believes could compromise employee or facility safety, and related testimony.
Rules for Handling Protected Information
A producing party may designate material by marking it with an appropriate confidentiality legend or by giving written notice when marking individual items is impractical. Summaries, copies, notes, compilations, electronic images, and databases containing protected information receive the same protection.
Protected material may be used only to investigate, prepare, and litigate this case unless the court orders otherwise or the parties agree in writing. Confidential material may be disclosed to specified participants, including the parties, their counsel and litigation personnel, certain university employees, retained experts or consultants, witnesses with relevant knowledge, court reporters, and the court. Highly confidential material has narrower access limits, generally including counsel, retained experts or consultants, certain authors or witnesses, court reporters, and the court.
Before certain experts, consultants, witnesses, or other agreed recipients receive protected material, counsel must provide the protective order and obtain a signed agreement to follow it and accept the court’s enforcement jurisdiction. Counsel must maintain a list of people receiving such material. Unauthorized disclosures must be reported promptly, and reasonable steps must be taken to recover the information.
Challenges, Privilege, and Later Use
A party may object in writing to a confidentiality designation. The designating party must respond within fourteen days, and the objecting party may ask the court to remove the designation if the dispute is not resolved. The designating party bears the burden of establishing confidentiality while the dispute is pending.
The order does not require production of material protected by valid objections or privileges and does not waive attorney-client privilege, attorney work-product protection, or other privileges or immunities. It also provides that an inadvertent production of privileged or work-product-protected material does not waive that protection. The order preserves the State University of New York’s obligations under New York’s Freedom of Information Law and does not restrict lawful use of information obtained outside this litigation.
After the litigation ends, including appeals and post-trial proceedings, a producing party may request the return or destruction of protected material. Counsel may retain work product, court filings, and official transcripts if they continue to keep them confidential. The order remains in effect after the case ends.
Court’s Limitation on the Order
Judge Jesse Furman ordered the stipulation on January 22, 2020. He expressly stated that the court had not reviewed the documents covered by the parties’ designations and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential. Any such finding would require a document-by-document review under the court’s rules and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.
The court also declined to approve paragraph 10 to the extent it purported to let the parties file documents under seal without first obtaining a court order. Thus, the protective order governs the parties’ treatment of designated discovery, but it does not itself authorize sealing court filings.
Read the full 14-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.