Halkitis v. New York City Department Of Education
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11753
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 11
In Halkitis v. New York City Department Of Education, Judge Furman approved a protective order governing confidential discovery but required separate approval for sealing.
The parties and others who receive or handle discovery information in the case, including attorneys, staff, experts, witnesses, deposition participants, and court personnel, are subject to the order’s confidentiality and disclosure restrictions.
What happened
In Halkitis v. New York City Department Of Education, Robert M. Halkitis sought documents and information from the New York City Department of Education and the individual defendants during discovery. The parties agreed to procedures for protecting information they designate as confidential.
The order limits use and disclosure of confidential information to preparing and presenting this case, with specified rules for attorneys, experts, witnesses, depositions, court proceedings, subpoenas, and destruction after the case ends. It also provides procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and addressing unauthorized disclosures.
Judge Jesse Furman ordered the stipulation to bind the parties, but stated that the court had not decided whether any documents were actually confidential. Judge Furman also clarified that documents may not be filed under seal without a separate court order.
The detailed version
- Halkitis v. New York City Department Of Education · No. 1:19-cv-11753
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 18, 2020
Background
Robert M. Halkitis sought documents and information from the New York City Department of Education, Donalda Chumney, Jennifer Rehn-Losquardo, Lindsay Oakes, Lisa Stefanick, Courtney Delaney, and Jasmina Gutic, identified in the order as “Yasmeen Gutic” in the case caption. The defendants considered some of the requested discovery materials confidential or highly confidential. The parties submitted a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order for court approval.
Main Terms
The order defines “Confidential Information” as information designated confidential by the supplying party based on a good-faith belief that it contains confidential information. The information may be used only to prepare or present Halkitis’s case. The order limits disclosure before trial to specified recipients, including counsel’s staff, retained or specially employed experts, deposition witnesses, and the court, as well as use at summary judgment, trial, or another hearing when necessary for the case. Other disclosures require a court application and good cause.
Before receiving confidential information, most permitted recipients must receive the order and sign a written consent agreeing to follow its restrictions. Copies may be made only as reasonably necessary for the case and must remain under the control of authorized persons. The order establishes procedures for marking documents, testimony, exhibits, and transcripts as confidential, correcting accidental omissions, and challenging confidentiality designations. Until the court rules on a dispute, the challenged information remains treated as confidential.
The order also restricts attendance and transcript access at virtual depositions involving confidential information. It provides notice procedures for using confidential information at trial or hearings, requires notice when a subpoena seeks such information, and requires prompt written notice of unauthorized disclosure. The parties and recipients agree to the court’s jurisdiction for enforcement and interpretation, and an impermissible use may result in civil or criminal contempt penalties. Confidentiality continues after the case ends, and the order requires destruction of the information and related materials within 90 days after termination, followed by written confirmation.
Court’s Ruling
Judge Jesse Furman ordered the stipulation to bind the parties to treat documents classified under it as confidential. The court expressly made no finding that any document was actually confidential because it had not reviewed the documents. Any such determination would occur, if necessary, through a document-by-document process under the court’s rules and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. Judge Furman did not approve any provision that purported to permit filing documents under seal without a prior court order.
Disposition
The court ordered the stipulated protective order, subject to the stated limitation that the parties may not file documents under seal without separate court approval.
Read the full 11-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.