Franco v. American Airlines, Inc.

Background

The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic medical, personnel, financial, business, and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the action.

Order

The court ordered people subject to the order—including the parties, their representatives and agents, experts and consultants, third parties providing discovery, and other people with actual or constructive notice—to follow its terms. Violations may be punished as contempt of court.

A producing party may designate only material that it reasonably and in good faith believes includes specified confidential information, such as previously undisclosed financial information, business plans, personal or medical information, information about American Airlines personnel or employee policies, and material concerning investigations of American Airlines human-resources complaints. The order also permits the court to give confidential status to another category later.

Confidential discovery material generally may be disclosed only to listed recipients, including the parties and their insurers, case counsel and assigned support staff, certain vendors, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and recipients, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Mediators, arbitrators, witnesses, and experts who receive the material must first sign the required nondisclosure agreement, and counsel must retain those agreements.

Court filings and disputes

The order does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial, waive objections to discovery, or waive any privilege or other protection. A party that objects to a confidentiality designation may give written notice before trial; unresolved disputes are to be presented to the court under the judge’s individual practices. A party seeking additional limits on disclosure must follow a similar process.

Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and any related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. If confidential material is filed with the court, the parties must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. The order states that sealing is not automatic: the court retains discretion and may unseal material if the required particularized findings are not made. It also warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.

Disposition and continuing obligations

The court ordered recipients, within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including all appeals, to return or—if the producing party permits—destroy confidential material and certify that they retained no copies or other reproductions. Lawyers specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of certain case files and attorney work product, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.

Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on June 23, 2022. The opinion text addresses discovery confidentiality and related filing procedures; it does not rule on the underlying claims.