Doe 1000 v. Indyke

Background

Jane Doe 1000 sued Darren K. Indyke and Richard D. Kahn in their capacities as executors of the Estate of Jeffrey Edward Epstein. The parties, through counsel, agreed that discovery could involve sensitive, nonpublic information and requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Confidential Information

The order permits a producing party—including a party or third party providing discovery—to designate portions of discovery materials as confidential when the party reasonably and in good faith believes they contain protected information. Listed categories include:

- Medical, mental-health, and other health-care records; - Information concerning Jane Doe 1000’s real name or personal details that could disclose her identity; - Social Security numbers, personal telephone numbers, tax returns, and credit or banking information; - Names of alleged minor victims of sexual abuse; - Previously undisclosed financial information; - Certain nonpublic business, marketing, financial, regulatory, commercial, or legally protected information, including trade secrets and third-party contracts; - Other material the parties agree in writing to treat as confidential; and - Other categories the court later gives confidential status.

The order states that the court did not itself determine that any particular discovery material is confidential. The court retains discretion over whether to provide confidential treatment, and it warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed merely because it was previously designated confidential.

Disclosure and Use Limits

Recipients generally may not disclose designated confidential material except to listed people, including the parties; counsel and their assigned staff; certain vendors and service providers; mediators or arbitrators; people identified on the face of a document as its authors, addressees, or recipients; potential witnesses; experts and other specialized advisers; deposition stenographers; and the court and its personnel.

Before receiving confidential material, vendors, mediators or arbitrators, potential witnesses, and experts or specialized advisers generally must receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. The agreement requires them to use the material only for the litigation and return it at the litigation’s conclusion. A producing party may disclose its own confidential material without obtaining such an agreement from its own current or former employees.

Absent an order from a court with authority over the matter, recipients may use confidential discovery material only to prosecute or defend this case, pursue related appeals, or participate in an alternative dispute-resolution proceeding intended to resolve this case with the producing party’s express permission. The order does not restrict a party’s rights concerning its own documents or information, or a party’s ability to seek discovery in this or another proceeding.

Court Filings and Challenges

A party filing confidential discovery material, or a filing that reveals it, must publicly file a redacted copy and submit an unredacted copy under seal. A party seeking to file material under seal must provide a particularized application and supporting declaration justifying the request. If the parties agree that particular portions are both confidential and immaterial to the lawsuit, those portions may be redacted from the public filing without submitting an unredacted copy or filing a motion to seal.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by giving written notice explaining the grounds. If the dispute is not resolved, the parties must present it to the court by motion. The party seeking confidentiality bears the burden of showing that the designation was proper, and the material remains treated as confidential while the dispute is pending. A party may also request additional limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation in extraordinary circumstances.

Privilege and Inadvertent Disclosure

The order provides procedures for material that may be protected by attorney-client privilege, work-product protection, or another privilege or immunity from disclosure. A recipient must limit its review, promptly notify the producing person, and, after an inadvertent-disclosure claim, generally return or destroy the material within five business days unless the recipient disputes the claim. The producing person must then provide a privilege log within five business days after receiving confirmation of the return or destruction.

A recipient may ask the court to compel production, but the motion must be filed under seal and may not quote or paraphrase the document’s substance beyond the description in the privilege log. The producing party retains the burden of establishing that the material is privileged or otherwise protected. The order states that an inadvertent disclosure does not waive or forfeit the claimed protection under the order’s terms.

Duration and Enforcement

Unless the parties agree otherwise or a court with authority orders otherwise, recipients must return or destroy confidential discovery material within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Outside counsel may retain one archival copy of specified litigation materials, subject to continuing confidentiality obligations. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction as necessary to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

Judge Lewis Liman entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The order governs discovery confidentiality and related enforcement procedures; it does not resolve the parties’ underlying claims, waive objections or privileges, or decide the admissibility of evidence at trial.