Craigwell v. City of New York

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets rules for handling information exchanged during discovery, the pretrial process in which parties obtain information from one another. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order.

The caption identifies Diana Craigwell as the plaintiff and the City of New York, the Department of Citywide Administrative Services, and the New York City Department of Transportation as defendants. The order does not describe the claims’ merits or decide any party’s substantive rights.

Terms of the Order

The order applies to the parties, their officers, agents, employees, attorneys, certain people acting with them, and others who receive actual notice of the order. It prohibits disclosure of discovery material designated “Confidential” except as the order permits.

A producing party may designate only material it reasonably and in good faith believes includes specified categories of sensitive information, including previously undisclosed financial information; personnel, disciplinary, labor-relations, recruitment, or equal-employment-opportunity files concerning nonparty current or former Department of Transportation employees; application materials for Executive Director Job Posting #253979; personal or intimate information; and categories later given confidential status by the court.

The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material and providing redacted copies for public use. Deposition transcripts are treated as confidential for 30 days after a deposition, subject to procedures for identifying the specific protected pages and lines. A producing party may later correct an omission by giving written notice and providing replacement versions within two business days.

Confidential material may be disclosed to specified recipients, including the parties and their counsel, insurers and their counsel, litigation vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors or addressees, potential witnesses, experts or specialized advisers, deposition transcription services, and the court. Certain recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement, and counsel must retain the signed agreements.

The order states that the court made no finding that any designated material is actually confidential and retains discretion over whether to provide confidential treatment. It warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed. A party seeking to file confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and separately seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal, with a particularized justification.

A party may object to a confidentiality designation or request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment, before trial. The order also allows production in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process, subject to notice requirements. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for another lawsuit or purpose.

Disposition and Effect

The court entered the stipulated protective order and made compliance enforceable through contempt. Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or summaries. Counsel specifically retained for the action may keep limited archival copies, which remain subject to the order. The order survives the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Judge Gregory H. Woods signed the order. Because this is a discovery and confidentiality order, it does not resolve the underlying claims.