In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers
- Jesse Furman
- 1:20-cv-06539
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 20
In re Citibank Wire Transfers: Judge Furman approved rules limiting discovery use and disclosure of confidential information.
The parties and nonparties who produce, receive, or access discovery material in the litigation, including their counsel, experts, consultants, witnesses, and specified personnel.
What happened
In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers involved the parties’ agreement about handling sensitive information exchanged during discovery, including documents, electronic data, and deposition testimony.
The order permits materials to be labeled either “Confidential” or “Highly Confidential,” limits who may receive them, restricts their use to the litigation, and sets procedures for inadvertent disclosures, challenges to designations, subpoenas, and returning or destroying materials after the case.
Judge Jesse Furman approved the stipulation but did not decide whether any particular document was actually confidential. The court also stated that materials cannot be filed under seal without a prior court order.
The detailed version
- In re Citibank August 11, 2020 Wire Transfers · No. 1:20-cv-06539
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 22, 2020
Background
The parties were conducting discovery, including depositions, document production, interrogatories, and requests for admission. They agreed that discovery could involve sensitive commercial, financial, personal, or business information and submitted a proposed order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows protective orders governing discovery.
Order
The court approved procedures for marking and handling two categories of discovery material: “Confidential” and “Highly Confidential.” A producing party may use those designations when it has the required good-faith basis. The order limits use of all discovery material to prosecuting or defending the litigation, including appeals.
Confidential material may generally be disclosed to the parties and specified personnel, counsel and their litigation staff, approved experts and consultants, witnesses and deponents when necessary, certain people identified in the material, the court, and other people authorized by court order or agreement. Highly Confidential material is subject to narrower access, including generally one designated person for each party, counsel and their staff, approved experts and consultants, witnesses and deponents when necessary, certain people identified in the material, and the court.
The order requires people receiving protected material to be told about the restrictions and to protect against unauthorized disclosure. It provides procedures for correcting an accidental failure to mark material, challenging a confidentiality designation, handling subpoenas, reporting unauthorized disclosure, and returning or destroying material after the litigation ends if requested. It also provides that an inadvertent production of privileged material does not waive the privilege, subject to procedures for notice, return, destruction, or challenge.
Limits on the Court’s Ruling
Judge Jesse Furman expressly stated that the court had not reviewed the documents referred to in the stipulation and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential. The court also did not approve any provision that would allow the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order. The order states that confidentiality determinations, if needed, will be made document by document under the court’s procedures and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.
Disposition
The court ordered the parties’ confidentiality stipulation, subject to the stated limits. This was a discovery and protective order; it did not decide the underlying claims or the confidentiality status of any specific document.
Read the full 20-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.