Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled May 4, 2023

Flores v. The City Of New York

Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Docket
1:21-cv-05861
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
9
Civil ProcedureDiscovery
In one sentence

In Flores v. City of New York, Judge Abrams entered a protective order governing Amtrak’s confidential discovery materials.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs, the City of New York, Amtrak, their attorneys and agents, approved experts and consultants, and other people who receive materials under the protective order.

What happened

In Flores v. The City Of New York, Amtrak said it intended to produce documents and information that it considered confidential or security-sensitive, but wanted confidentiality protections before producing them.

The order limits use and disclosure of designated materials to this case and allows access only to specified people, including the parties, their lawyers, necessary experts, the court, and certain others who agree in writing to keep the information confidential. It also sets procedures for seeking permission to file confidential material under seal, reporting unauthorized access within 24 hours, and returning or destroying the materials after the case ends.

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the confidentiality agreement and protective order on May 4, 2023. The order does not decide whether the materials are relevant or admissible and gives the Southern District of New York continuing authority over disputes arising under the order.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Flores v. The City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-05861
Judge
Ronnie Abrams
Date
May 4, 2023

Background

This order concerns a confidentiality agreement and protective order in an action brought by Sugely Flores, Yvelise Beltre, and Oscar Moronta against the City of New York and National Railroad Passenger Corporation, doing business as Amtrak. Amtrak stated that it intended to produce documents and information in response to the parties’ demands that it considered confidential, security-sensitive, or otherwise inappropriate for public disclosure. The parties’ attorneys consented to the agreement, which was submitted to the court for entry as an order.

Terms of the Order

Amtrak may designate documents or materials as “confidential” by marking each page. Confidential materials may be used only to prepare for and try this action. The order limits disclosure to specified “Qualified Persons,” including the parties and their employees and agents, counsel and assisting employees, necessary experts and consultants, the court and its staff under seal, deposition court reporters and videographers, and others mutually approved in writing who sign the required nondisclosure form. Experts and consultants may not receive the materials if they work for a competitor of a defendant, unless that competitor is a party to the action.

Copies and permitted notes, summaries, extracts, and descriptions must also be treated as confidential. Parties must notify Amtrak in writing within 24 hours after discovering that confidential materials were misplaced, lost, stolen, or accessed electronically by an unauthorized user. Within 60 days after the action ends through a final judgment or dismissal order, parties and covered nonparties generally must return the materials to Amtrak or destroy them with Amtrak’s consent and provide the required certification. Outside counsel may retain copies of court pleadings and deposition or court transcripts or recordings.

Filing Under Seal

The order does not automatically permit any document to be filed under seal. A party seeking to file confidential material with the court must obtain a further court order addressing the specific material. The application must include affidavits and a legal memorandum showing that sealing standards are met and addressing the governing authority identified in the order. The order also establishes notice periods when a party seeks to use another party’s confidential information. Redactions expressly allowed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2 may be made without another application.

Ruling and Effect

Judge Ronnie Abrams ordered the confidentiality agreement and protective order. The Southern District of New York retains jurisdiction over matters arising under the order. The order states that Amtrak’s disclosure of confidential materials does not admit that those materials are relevant or admissible, and that if one provision is legally invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions continue in effect. The order addresses discovery confidentiality and does not resolve the underlying claims.

The authoritative version

Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.