Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 24, 2020

Chevalier v. Staffpro, Inc.

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:20-cv-07006
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Chevalier v. Staffpro, Inc., Judge Abrams denied the defendants’ request to limit mediation-related document exchanges to mediation.

Who this affects

The ruling affected the defendants’ request for a confidentiality stipulation governing informal document and information exchanges related to mediation, and the parties involved in those exchanges.

What happened

In Chevalier v. Staffpro, Inc., the defendants asked the court to approve a confidentiality agreement for documents and information exchanged before a scheduled mediation.

The defendants said the parties planned to mediate before formal discovery and that limiting the exchanged materials to mediation would help them evaluate their claims, defenses, and potential damages. Plaintiff’s counsel rejected the proposed agreement but said counsel would follow the confidentiality rules that applied to the mediation.

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the defendants’ motion and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion listed at Docket 16. The text does not provide a further explanation for the ruling.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Chevalier v. Staffpro, Inc. · No. 1:20-cv-07006
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
Nov. 24, 2020

Background

The defendants identified in the filing were Staffpro, Inc., Sharp Management Corp., Brook-Sharp Realty LLC, and Sharp Pros LLC. Their counsel asked the court to help implement a proposed confidentiality stipulation for documents and information exchanged in connection with a mediation scheduled for December 3, 2020.

The defendants stated that the parties had agreed to mediate before formal discovery began. They sought to restrict the use of any informal exchange of documents and information to the mediation, so the parties could evaluate their claims and defenses and estimate potential damages. The defendants said that, if mediation failed, they would reserve the right to ask for a protective order governing exchanges during the litigation.

Parties’ Positions

According to the defendants’ counsel, plaintiff’s counsel rejected the proposed confidentiality stipulation and said counsel would not sign a confidentiality or protective order unless the standard required by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit was met. Plaintiff’s counsel also stated that counsel would follow the confidentiality obligations attached to the mediation. The defendants cited Southern District of New York decisions recognizing confidentiality agreements for information exchanged before or during mediation.

Ruling

After a conference, Judge Ronnie Abrams denied the defendants’ motion. The court directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion pending at Docket 16. The opinion text does not state the court’s reasoning beyond that disposition.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.