James v. Port Authority Police Department

Nature of the Order

This is a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties, through counsel, asked the court to protect nonpublic and sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the case.

Information That May Be Designated Confidential

The order allows a producing party to designate as confidential, among other things, Port Authority Police Department personnel and disciplinary records; investigations into the conduct of department members; Equal Employment Opportunity Compliance files and materials; department policies, announcements, directives, and advisories; private agreements involving the Port Authority and benevolent associations representing department members; Trion James’s personal financial or medical information; personal or intimate information about any individual; information designated in good faith during the litigation; and other categories the court later grants confidential status. Names and contact information of nonparty witnesses may also be designated confidential.

Limits on Disclosure and Use

People subject to the order generally may not disclose confidential discovery material except as the order permits. Permitted recipients include the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation support staff, outside vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators who sign a nondisclosure agreement, certain people connected to a document, potential witnesses who sign a nondisclosure agreement, experts or other specialized advisers who sign a nondisclosure agreement, deposition transcription staff, and the court and its personnel.

Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals. They may not use it for business, commercial, competitive, or other litigation purposes. The order does not restrict a party’s rights concerning its own documents or information. It also permits production in response to a lawful subpoena or other legally required process, subject to notice to the producing party when reasonably possible.

Confidentiality Procedures

The producing party or its counsel must clearly mark confidential material and provide a redacted copy for future public use when applicable. Deposition material may be designated on the record or within 30 days after the deposition; during that 30-day period, the entire transcript must be treated as confidential. A producing party may later correct an earlier failure to designate material by notifying prior recipients in writing.

A party objecting to a confidentiality designation may give written notice stating the grounds for the objection. If the parties cannot promptly resolve the dispute, counsel must bring it to the court under the judge’s individual practices. A party seeking additional disclosure limits, such as an attorneys’-eyes-only designation, must follow a similar procedure.

The order does not waive discovery objections or privileges and does not decide whether any document, testimony, or other evidence may be admitted at trial. A party filing confidential material must publicly file a redacted version and file the unredacted version under seal. A separate letter brief and supporting declaration must justify continued sealing, and the court retains discretion over whether confidential treatment is appropriate. The order warns that material introduced at trial is unlikely to remain sealed.

End of the Case and Enforcement

Within 60 days after final disposition of the case, including appeals, recipients must return or, with the producing party’s permission, destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they kept no copies or summaries. Lawyers specifically retained for the case may keep an archival copy of specified case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order.

The confidentiality obligations continue after the litigation ends. The court retains jurisdiction over people subject to the order as needed to enforce its requirements or impose contempt sanctions. Judge Paul G. Gardephe entered the order on November 3, 2022.