El Chaar v. New York University

Background

The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order is a court order governing the handling and disclosure of information exchanged during discovery. The parties represented that discovery would involve confidential documents or information whose public disclosure could cause harm to the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The order also addresses protected health information regulated by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and related regulations.

Terms of the Order

The order applies to discovery materials produced by a party or nonparty, including documents, interrogatory answers, requests for admission, deposition testimony, and copies or summaries of those materials. A producing party may designate only information it reasonably and in good faith believes is confidential. Examples include nonpublic financial or business information, business plans, personal or family information, medical and mental-health information, protected health information, and nonpublic records of nonparties.

People receiving designated confidential material generally may disclose it only to specified recipients, such as the parties and their insurers, case counsel and support staff, vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators, document authors or recipients, potential witnesses, experts, stenographers, and the court. Some recipients must first receive the order and sign an acknowledgment agreeing to follow it. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals.

The order establishes procedures for marking confidential material and producing redacted copies. It requires public redacted filings when confidential discovery material is submitted to the court and requires a separate application and supporting declaration for any request to file an unredacted version under seal. The order expressly states that it does not automatically entitle a party to seal information and that the court has not made a final finding that any designated material is confidential.

The parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional limits on disclosure. The order also addresses subpoenas, inadvertent disclosure, privileged or attorney-work-product material produced during discovery, and the review of documents for relevance and privilege. After the final disposition of the litigation, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material within the periods specified in the order, subject to limited archival-copy provisions for attorneys. The order remains binding after the litigation ends and may be enforced through sanctions under Rule 37(b), contempt, and other available remedies.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Analisa Torres entered the stipulated confidentiality and protective order. This was a discovery-related procedural order, not a decision on the parties’ underlying legal claims. The opinion does not describe the claims or defenses sufficiently to summarize their merits.