Luciano v. 1199 SEIU United Healthcare Workers East

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The parties agreed to the order’s terms through counsel, and the court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Order’s Terms

The order defines “Discovery Material” as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate only portions that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain specified confidential information, including:

- previously undisclosed financial information; - previously undisclosed information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; - previously undisclosed labor-union organizing plans, member-representation information, or political-action plans; - personal or intimate information about an individual; or - another category the court later gives confidential status.

People subject to the order may not disclose designated material except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties and certain insurers, counsel and their assistants, outside vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators, specified people identified on documents, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcription staff, and the court. Certain witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.

The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for another purpose or litigation. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or other protections, and it does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.

Confidentiality Disputes and Court Filings

A party may object to a confidentiality designation by written notice stating specific grounds. If the parties cannot promptly resolve the dispute, counsel must bring it to the court under the court’s individual practices. A party seeking additional restrictions, such as an “attorneys’ eyes only” designation, must follow a similar process.

When confidential material is filed, the parties must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party seeking sealing must submit a particularized justification under the court’s individual rules. The order warns that the court has not determined that any designated material is actually confidential and may not seal material introduced at trial.

Disposition

Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order requires recipients, within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, to return or destroy confidential material and certify that they retained no copies, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for counsel specifically retained for the case. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions. The opinion does not rule on the merits of Luciano’s underlying claims.