Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York
- Lewis Liman
- 1:22-cv-03074
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York, Judge Liman denied without prejudice a request about redacted invoices and ordered a proposed protective order.
Ruradan Corporation, the Toasties Defendants, and nonparty tenants whose invoice information was discussed in the application.
What happened
In Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York, Ruradan Corporation said it produced invoices requested by the Toasties Defendants but redacted invoices concerning unrelated tenants in the same building. Ruradan described that information as proprietary and unrelated to the case.
The Toasties Defendants requested unredacted documents during a court conference. Ruradan asked for a protective order under Rule 26(c), arguing that the redacted portions concerned nonparty tenants and were not responsive to the document request.
The court denied the request without prejudice and directed the parties to submit a proposed protective order with their signatures. Judge Liman entered the order on December 19, 2022.
The detailed version
- Ruradan Corporation v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-03074
- Lewis Liman
- Dec. 19, 2022
Background
Ruradan Corporation's counsel submitted a letter application under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which allows a court to issue a protective order to prevent undue burden, expense, embarrassment, or oppression in discovery. The application concerned invoices produced to the Toasties Defendants.
According to the application, the Toasties Defendants requested documents concerning invoices, bills, or similar statements sent by Ruradan to them. Ruradan said it produced approximately 100 pages of invoices from 2013 through 2020. The printout also included invoices showing charges to unrelated third-party tenants for separate rental units in the same building. Ruradan said it redacted only the invoices that did not concern the Toasties Defendants.
Requested Relief
During a December 14, 2022 conference, counsel for the Toasties Defendants requested unredacted documents. Ruradan asked the court to issue a protective order denying that request. Ruradan argued that the redacted information was proprietary, confidential, irrelevant to the case, and related to nonparty tenants. Ruradan also stated that it had not redacted information from invoices concerning the Toasties Defendants and offered to provide redacted and unredacted copies for the court's private review.
Ruling
The court denied the request without prejudice. The court directed the parties to submit a proposed protective order bearing their signatures and noted that a model protective order was available on the court's website. The order was signed by Judge Lewis J. Liman and dated December 19, 2022.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.