Bahadoran v. City Of New York
- Jesse Furman
- 1:21-cv-04884
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In Bahadoran v. City of New York, Judge Furman entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials without deciding whether they are confidential.
Peyman Bahadoran, the City of New York, Officers Jillian Suarez and Bryan Rozanski, their attorneys, and people who receive or possess materials covered by the protective order.
What happened
In Bahadoran v. City of New York, Peyman Bahadoran sought documents and information from the City of New York and Officers Jillian Suarez and Bryan Rozanski. The defendants treated some of the requested materials as confidential or privileged.
The court entered the parties’ agreed protective order. It limits use and disclosure of designated confidential materials to preparing and presenting Bahadoran’s case, establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, and requires materials to be returned or destroyed after the lawsuit ends. It also restricts disclosure of certain personal information about victims, witnesses, and police personnel to the plaintiff’s lawyer and the lawyer’s staff or agents.
Judge Jesse M. Furman stated that the court had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that they were confidential. The court also did not authorize filing materials under seal without a separate court order.
The detailed version
- Bahadoran v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-04884
- Jesse Furman
- July 12, 2022
Background
Peyman Bahadoran sought documents and information from the City of New York, Officer Jillian Suarez, and Officer Bryan Rozanski in this lawsuit. The defendants considered the requested materials confidential, private, or protected by law-enforcement, governmental, or other privileges. The parties stipulated to a protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which allows a court to protect discovery from improper use or disclosure.
Terms of the Protective Order
The order defines “Confidential Materials” to include New York City Police Department personnel and disciplinary records, records of investigations into the conduct of police-service members, and other documents or information designated in good faith by the defendants or the court. Materials that Bahadoran lawfully obtains through a subpoena or New York’s Freedom of Information Law, or that are otherwise publicly available, are excluded to that extent.
The defendants must identify confidential documents by labeling them or identifying them by control number in writing. Bahadoran may object to a designation, and the parties must try in good faith to resolve the dispute. If they cannot do so, the defendants or Bahadoran must seek a court ruling under the procedures stated in the order. Materials remain confidential while the dispute is pending.
Bahadoran and his attorney may use the confidential materials only to prepare or present his case. The attorney may disclose them, when necessary, to the attorney’s staff, retained experts, deposition witnesses, or the court, subject to the order’s written-consent requirements. Deposition testimony may also be designated confidential under specified procedures. After the lawsuit ends, including any appeals, the materials and related copies or notes must be returned to the defendants’ attorneys or destroyed, with verification by affidavit if required. The order states that its confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends.
The order separately requires Bahadoran’s counsel to keep certain personal information about complaining victims, witnesses, and identified police personnel confidential and limited to attorney, law-firm, or agent use for communicating with witnesses or serving subpoenas. That information may not be disclosed to Bahadoran, his family members, or others, and may not be included in publicly filed court documents.
Court’s Qualification and Action
Judge Jesse M. Furman entered the stipulated protective order, but expressly stated that the court had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that they were confidential. Any such determination would be made, if necessary, document by document, subject to the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents. The court also stated that it did not approve any provision that would permit the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order. The opinion is a discovery-related procedural order and does not decide the underlying claims.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.