Rich v. Fox News Network LLC
- George Daniels
- 1:18-cv-02223
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Rich v. Fox News Network, Judge Netburn issued a protective order governing confidential discovery and related disclosures.
The parties, their lawyers and litigation personnel, experts, consultants, witnesses, service providers, third parties producing discovery, and other people with actual or constructive notice of the order.
What happened
In Rich v. Fox News Network LLC, the parties agreed that discovery could involve sensitive or nonpublic information. The court found good cause to issue a confidentiality order for the pretrial phase of the case.
The order limits disclosure of materials marked confidential, including personal, financial, business, journalistic, and personnel information. It allows disclosure to specified people, such as the parties, lawyers, experts, certain witnesses, service providers, and the court, and requires some recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements.
Judge Sarah Netburn ordered the parties and other covered people to follow these requirements. The order also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential materials with the court, returning or destroying materials after the case ends, and enforcing the order.
The detailed version
- Rich v. Fox News Network LLC · No. 1:18-cv-02223
- George Daniels
- Feb. 6, 2020
Background
The parties asked the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to issue a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and sensitive information that might be produced during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Order
The order defines “Discovery Material” as information of any kind produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate material as “Confidential” only when it reasonably and in good faith believes disclosure could seriously harm commercial, business, or journalistic interests, or legitimate privacy interests. Examples include medical and financial records, business information, journalistic sources and practices, reporting practices, personnel records, and personal information.
People covered by the order generally may not disclose confidential discovery material except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties; counsel and their litigation staff; outside vendors and service providers; mediators or arbitrators; certain people identified in a document; qualifying witnesses; experts and specialized consultants; stenographers; and the court, including an appellate court. Witnesses and experts in the specified categories must receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement before receiving the material.
The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and it does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial. It provides a procedure for clawing back inadvertently produced privileged material. It also requires parties seeking to file confidential material under seal to request permission from the court and provide the findings needed for a sealing decision. Public filings containing confidential material must include a redacted version, while the unredacted version is filed under seal.
A party may challenge a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice explaining the objection. If the parties cannot promptly resolve the issue, the moving party must request a court conference under Local Civil Rule 37.2. The order also addresses disclosures required by subpoenas or other legal process, precautions against unauthorized disclosure, and the return or destruction of confidential material within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals. The order remains binding after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
The court issued the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. Judge Sarah Netburn signed the order on February 6, 2020. The opinion text identifies Sarah Netburn as the signing judge, although the supplied case metadata identifies George Daniels.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.