Shnyra v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., Inc.
- Gregory Woods
- 1:19-cv-02420
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
Shnyra v. State Street Bank and Trust Co.: Judge Woods approved a protective order governing confidential discovery information.
The plaintiffs, Ksenia Shnyra, Alexander Reyngold, and Kenneth Walker; the defendant, State Street Bank and Trust Co., Inc.; and other people subject to the order who receive or handle designated confidential discovery material.
What happened
In Shnyra v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., the plaintiffs and defendant agreed through their lawyers that discovery could involve nonpublic financial, business, and personal information. They asked the court to issue rules limiting disclosure of that information.
The order allows information to be marked confidential when it falls within specified categories. It limits disclosure mainly to the parties, lawyers, experts, witnesses, and others involved in this case, requires certain recipients to sign nondisclosure agreements, and permits use only for this case and related appeals. It also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and filing confidential materials with the court.
The court found good cause and entered the stipulated protective order on January 10, 2022. Judge Gregory H. Woods stated that the order did not itself decide whether any material was actually entitled to confidential treatment and that covered materials generally must be returned or destroyed within 60 days after the case, including appeals, ends.
The detailed version
- Shnyra v. State Street Bank and Trust Co., Inc. · No. 1:19-cv-02420
- Gregory Woods
- Jan. 10, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs, Ksenia Shnyra, Alexander Reyngold, and Kenneth Walker, and the defendant, State Street Bank and Trust Co., Inc., jointly submitted a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. A protective order is a court order that sets limits on handling information exchanged during discovery. The parties said discovery might require disclosure of nonpublic and competitively sensitive information. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order covering the pretrial phase of the case.
Confidential information
The order permits a producing party to designate only portions of discovery material that it reasonably and in good faith believes include specified types of information, including previously undisclosed financial information, ownership or control information concerning a nonpublic company, business plans, product-development or marketing information, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court. The order provides procedures for marking materials and producing redacted copies for public use. Deposition transcripts are treated as confidential during the 30 days following a deposition, subject to the order’s designation procedures.
The parties may also designate previously produced material within specified time periods or correct an earlier failure to designate material. A confidentiality designation does not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or objections to using evidence at trial.
Disclosure and use limits
People subject to the order may disclose confidential discovery material only to listed recipients, including the parties, insurers and their counsel, counsel retained for the case, vendors working for counsel, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts and other specialized advisers, deposition transcription providers, and the court. Certain recipients must first receive a copy of the order and sign the attached nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for another purpose or litigation.
The order requires reasonable precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. It permits disclosure in response to a lawful subpoena or other compulsory process, subject to notice requirements. Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy the confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Lawyers specifically retained for the case may keep an archival copy of certain case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.
Court filings and ruling
The order requires a party filing confidential discovery material or papers revealing it to publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party seeking sealing must submit an application and supporting declaration showing a particularized basis for sealing. The court warned that it may not seal materials introduced at trial and that it had not made a finding that any designated material was actually confidential.
On January 10, 2022, Judge Gregory H. Woods entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. The opinion does not decide the underlying claims or determine that any particular discovery material is confidential.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.