DeAngelo v. Maximus
- Cathy Seibel
- 7:19-cv-07957
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In DeAngelo v. Maximus, Judge Seibel entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery materials and related filings.
The parties, their attorneys, witnesses, experts, service providers, and other people who receive or have notice of confidential discovery material in DeAngelo v. Maximus.
What happened
In DeAngelo v. Maximus, the parties agreed to rules protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The document identifies Deborah DeAngelo as the plaintiff and Maximus, Inc. as the defendant.
The order limits who may receive information marked confidential and requires recipients to use it only for this case and related appeals. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential materials with the court, responding to subpoenas, and returning or destroying protected materials after the case ends.
Judge Seibel entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on April 19, 2021. The order states that the court made no finding that any particular material is confidential and retains discretion over whether to keep materials confidential, especially if they are introduced at trial.
The detailed version
- DeAngelo v. Maximus · No. 7:19-cv-07957
- Cathy Seibel
- Apr. 19, 2021
Background
The parties agreed to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery. The document identifies Deborah DeAngelo as the plaintiff and Maximus, Inc. as the defendant. DeAngelo signed as a self-represented party, and counsel signed for Maximus, Inc.
Protective-order terms
The order permits a producing party to mark information confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the information falls within listed categories, including previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information about a nonpublic company, business or marketing plans, personal or intimate information, or another category given confidential status by the court.
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to specified people, including the parties, certain counsel and service providers, mediators or arbitrators, appropriate witnesses and experts who first sign nondisclosure agreements, deposition transcription providers, and the court. The material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals. The order does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or evidentiary objections.
The order establishes procedures for designating deposition testimony, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, objecting to a confidentiality designation, and requesting additional limits such as attorneys'-eyes-only treatment. It also requires public redacted filings when confidential material is submitted to the court, while allowing an unredacted version to be filed under seal if the party makes a particularized application and supporting declaration. The court warns that it may unseal materials if the required findings for sealing cannot be made.
Within 60 days after final resolution of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they kept no copies. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep archival copies of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends.
Court’s action and effect
The document is a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order, and the court ordered it on April 19, 2021. Judge Cathy Seibel stated that the court had not determined that any discovery material is actually confidential and retained discretion to decide whether to provide confidential treatment. This order governs discovery and related court filings; the opinion does not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.