United States v. Rutherford Tenants Corp.

Background

The United States, complainant Meril Lesser, and defendants Rutherford Tenants Corp. and James Ramadei jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that could be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase.

Terms of the Order

The order defines “Discovery Material” broadly as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A producing party may designate only portions that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain specified confidential categories, including previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information, including health and treatment records; and other categories the court later protects.

Confidential material generally may be disclosed only to listed recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and support staff, outside service providers, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Mediators, witnesses, and experts must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for business, competitive, or other litigation purposes.

The order authorizes disclosure of information to the extent permitted by the Privacy Act under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11), but it does not require disclosure barred by other privileges, statutes, regulations, or authorities. It does not waive discovery objections or privileges and does not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial.

Court Filings and Enforcement

A party seeking to file documents under seal must simultaneously submit a letter brief and supporting declaration explaining, on a particularized basis, why continued sealing is justified. The court retained discretion over whether to keep confidential material private when submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding, and stated that it was unlikely to seal material introduced into evidence at trial merely because it had previously been designated confidential. Confidential court submissions require a publicly filed redacted copy and an unredacted copy filed under seal.

Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits, including attorneys’-eyes-only treatment in extraordinary circumstances. If the parties cannot resolve those disputes, they must bring them to the court under its individual practices. Recipients must take precautions against unauthorized or accidental disclosure. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they kept no copies or summaries, although specifically retained counsel may keep certain archival case files subject to the order. The order survives the end of the litigation, and the court retained jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling

The court issued the stipulated protective order. This order governed discovery confidentiality and did not decide the underlying claims or the admissibility of any evidence. Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order on March 3, 2022.