Thorogood v. New York Times Company
- Paul Gardephe
- 1:22-cv-02042
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Thorogood v. New York Times Company, Judge Gardephe entered a protective order governing confidential discovery in the parties’ lawsuit.
The parties—Farah Thorogood, The New York Times Company, and Ruby Kaur—and the people and entities covered by the order, including their representatives, agents, experts, consultants, discovery providers, witnesses, and others with notice of the order.
What happened
In Farah Thorogood v. The New York Times Company, and Ruby Kaur, the parties asked the court to issue an order protecting nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be exchanged during discovery.
The order limits disclosure of information designated confidential, identifies people who may receive it, and requires nondisclosure agreements for certain witnesses, mediators, and experts. It also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, filing confidential materials with the court, requesting their return or destruction, and handling inadvertently disclosed protected information.
The court found good cause for a properly limited order and entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order. Judge Paul G. Gardephe’s order applies during the case and continues after the litigation ends.
The detailed version
- Thorogood v. New York Times Company · No. 1:22-cv-02042
- Paul Gardephe
- Aug. 1, 2022
Background
The parties, through their lawyers, 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 issuing a properly tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Terms of the Order
The order permits a producing party to designate only portions of discovery material that it reasonably and in good faith believes contain specified types of information, including previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; or another category later given confidential status by the court.
People subject to the order generally may not disclose designated confidential discovery material except as the order permits. Authorized recipients include the parties and certain insurers, counsel and their staff, vendors, mediators or arbitrators, specified people identified on documents, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcribers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement.
The order states that confidentiality designations do not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and do not decide whether evidence will be admissible at trial. It also provides a procedure for demanding the return or destruction of material that is privileged, otherwise protected, personally identifiable, sensitive, or nonresponsive, without waiving the applicable protection.
Parties filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A party objecting to a confidentiality designation may give written notice stating the grounds for the objection; unresolved disputes may be presented to the court. The court retains discretion over whether to keep material confidential when it is submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding, and the order warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.
Ruling and Effect
The court entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order after finding good cause. Confidential discovery material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes. Within 60 days after final disposition, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy the material and certify that they have not retained copies or summaries, subject to a limited archival-copy exception for counsel. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions. Judge Paul G. Gardephe signed the order on August 1, 2022.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.