Hall v. The Urban Assembly, Inc.
- Jesse Furman
- 1:19-cv-11572
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Hall v. City of New York, Judge Furman so-ordered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The order binds Chad Hall, the City of New York, the City’s Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts designation, the New York City Department of Education, their attorneys, and other people who receive covered materials.
What happened
Hall v. City of New York concerns the parties’ agreement to protect confidential documents exchanged during discovery. The caption identifies Chad Hall as the plaintiff and the City of New York, doing business as Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts, and the New York City Department of Education as defendants.
The order covers documents and information about current or former City and Department of Education employees, including medical, personnel, disciplinary, payroll, tax, and investigative records. It limits use and disclosure of those materials, establishes procedures for confidential deposition testimony and court filings, requires return or destruction after the case ends, and provides a process for reclaiming accidentally produced privileged material.
Judge Jesse M. Furman so-ordered the stipulation and protective order on January 22, 2021. The court stated that it had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential; it also said the parties could not file documents under seal without a separate court order.
The detailed version
- Hall v. The Urban Assembly, Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-11572
- Jesse Furman
- Jan. 22, 2021
Background
The parties stipulated to a protective order because each side had requested documents in discovery that the other side considered confidential. The opinion’s caption identifies the plaintiff as Chad Hall and the defendants as the City of New York, doing business as “Urban Assembly School for the Performing Arts,” and the New York City Department of Education.
Scope of Protected Material
The order defines “Confidential Materials” to include documents and information concerning current or former employees of the City and the Department of Education. Examples include medical, personnel, disciplinary, time and attendance, payroll, financial, tax, labor-relations, equal-employment-opportunity, and investigative records. Information obtained from an independent source or otherwise publicly available is not confidential under the order.
Restrictions and Procedures
Receiving parties and their attorneys may use Confidential Materials only to prepare or present their case in this action. Disclosure is limited to specified people, including the party, retained experts and consultants, deposition or potential trial witnesses, and the court. Before disclosure to most of those people, the recipient must receive a copy of the order and sign a written agreement limiting use and further disclosure.
Deposition testimony that reveals Confidential Materials is itself treated as confidential. A party intending to include such material in a court filing must contact the producing party seven days beforehand. The party that designated the material confidential may then request sealing or redacted filing under the court’s rules.
The order also provides that, within 30 days after the case ends, including appeals, covered materials generally must be destroyed, with written verification. It protects against waiver when privileged or attorney-work-product material is produced, including by mistake. A producing party may demand the return or destruction of such material, and the receiving party must comply within five business days. The receiving party may then ask the court within seven business days to order production or removal of redactions.
Court’s Ruling and Limitations
Judge Jesse M. Furman so-ordered the parties’ stipulation and protective order on January 22, 2021. The court retained jurisdiction over disputes concerning the order’s implementation. It expressly stated that it had not reviewed the documents and made no finding that any document was confidential. The court also declined to so-order any provision that would allow the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order, emphasizing the presumption of public access to judicial documents.
Disposition
The court entered the stipulated protective order. This was a discovery-related procedural order; the text does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.