Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission
- Philip Halpern
- 7:17-cv-10040
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission, Judge Halpern entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery.
The parties and their attorneys, representatives, experts, consultants, witnesses, vendors, third parties producing discovery, and other people who receive or have notice of confidential discovery material are bound by the order’s requirements.
What happened
Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission concerns the parties’ agreement to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The parties asked the court to issue an order limiting disclosure of that information.
The order generally allows confidential discovery material to be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. It identifies who may receive the material, requires certain recipients to sign confidentiality agreements, and establishes procedures for filing confidential material, challenging confidentiality designations, handling privileged material disclosed by mistake, and returning or destroying protected material after the case ends.
Judge Philip M. Halpern found good cause for the order and entered it on July 13, 2020. The order does not decide the underlying claims or the admissibility of evidence at trial.
The detailed version
- Murtha v. New York State Gaming Commission · No. 7:17-cv-10040
- Philip Halpern
- July 13, 2020
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They agreed that discovery might involve nonpublic and competitively sensitive information. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Order’s requirements
The order defines “Discovery Material” as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate information as “Confidential” if counsel believes in good faith that it qualifies for protection under Rule 26(c). The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material, designating deposition testimony and exhibits, and correcting an earlier failure to designate material.
Confidential material may be disclosed only to specified categories of people, including the parties, counsel and their litigation-support personnel, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain document recipients, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. People who receive confidential material must take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure and may use the material only for this action and related appeals—not for business, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
The order also sets procedures for objections to confidentiality designations and requests for additional disclosure limits. A party filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding, and the order warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.
Privileged material and end of case
If privileged or attorney-work-product material is inadvertently disclosed, the disclosure does not waive the protection under the order. The receiving party generally must return or destroy the material within five business days after notification, and the producing party must then provide a privilege log. The receiving party may ask the court to order production, but the motion must be filed under seal.
Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they kept no copies. Attorneys retained for the action may keep an archival copy of specified case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and address contempt.
Disposition
The document states “SO ORDERED” and makes the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order effective. It does not resolve the merits of the dispute, rule on discovery requests, or decide whether any evidence is admissible at trial.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.