P.T. v. The Rockefeller University

Background

The plaintiffs are P.T., J.A.T., J.T., and M.V. The defendant is The Rockefeller University, also identified in the caption by several former or alternate names. The parties submitted a stipulated protective order for information and documents exchanged during the pretrial phase of the action. The court stated that good cause existed for an appropriately limited confidentiality order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

Protective-order requirements

The order allows a party’s counsel to designate information as confidential when counsel determines in good faith that it contains nonpublic sensitive scientific, medical, financial, commercial, personal, or health information. It specifically covers patient information, protected health information, individually identifiable health information, medical and mental-health information, and personally identifying information such as Social Security numbers, financial-account numbers, and passwords.

Confidential information may be used only for this action. Disclosure is limited to people reasonably involved in prosecuting, defending, settling, or handling related insurance litigation, including the parties and their counsel, necessary staff and vendors, consultants and experts, certain insurers and their representatives, the court, and court reporters. Before disclosure, counsel must inform the recipient about the confidentiality requirements and obtain a signed agreement to follow the order.

The order establishes a process for challenging a confidentiality designation. It also addresses confidential deposition testimony, including designation during the deposition or within 30 days after receipt of the final transcript. Producing material without a confidentiality designation does not waive the later right to designate it. The parties must securely maintain personally identifying information, and an inadvertent disclosure of privileged communications does not waive privilege if the parties follow Federal Rule of Evidence 502.

At the end of the action, confidential information generally must be returned to the producing party or certified as destroyed within 30 days after final judgment is no longer subject to further appeal. Counsel may retain working files, but those files must remain protected and may not be used for another purpose. The confidentiality provisions continue after the case ends, except for material that becomes part of the public record, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order or impose contempt sanctions.

Ruling and limitation

Judge Furman ordered that the restrictions and procedures in the stipulation apply. The order states, however, that the court had not reviewed the documents and was making no finding that any particular document was confidential. Whether material may be filed under seal must be decided under the court’s filing procedures; the protective order creates no automatic right to seal. The opinion text also indicates that the court did not approve provisions to the extent they purported to authorize sealing contrary to those procedures, although the final portion of that statement is incomplete in the provided text.