Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors v. City of New York
- Analisa Torres
- 1:22-cv-10336
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Local 2507 v. City of New York, Judge Gorenstein issued a protective order without ruling which materials were confidential.
The parties to the case, including Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors and the City of New York, are governed by the protective and confidentiality order.
What happened
Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors and other plaintiffs sued the City of New York. The opinion addresses the parties’ proposed protective and confidentiality order.
The court reviewed the parties’ proposals and issued its own version of a protective order. It said the parties should act in good faith and designate as confidential only materials they reasonably expect would qualify for protection under the federal civil procedure rules.
The order did not decide which materials were properly confidential. Disputes about confidentiality designations may be brought to the court under the order and its practices, as stated by United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein.
The detailed version
- Local 2507, Uniformed EMTs, Paramedics & Fire Inspectors v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-10336
- Analisa Torres
- Apr. 14, 2023
Background The plaintiffs and the City of New York submitted proposals for a protective and confidentiality order. Such an order governs the handling of information exchanged in litigation that a party seeks to protect from broader disclosure.
Court’s Action The court reviewed the parties’ proposals and issued its own version of the protective order. It cited federal authority recognizing the court’s power to do so.
Confidentiality Designations The court expressly made no ruling at that time about which materials were properly designated as confidential. It expected the parties to act in good faith and designate only materials for which they anticipated that a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) would be granted.
Disputes and Disposition The order stated that disputes about confidentiality designations could be brought to the court under the protective and confidentiality order and the court’s individual practices. The opinion does not state that the court granted or denied either party’s proposal; it states that the court issued its own order.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.