Luckie v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
- Edgardo Ramos
- 1:22-cv-06114
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 10
In Luckie v. The Port Authority, Judge Ramos entered a stipulated protective order governing confidential discovery and its disclosure.
The parties, their lawyers and litigation personnel, insurers, vendors, mediators, arbitrators, witnesses, experts, third parties producing discovery, and other people subject to or given notice of the order.
What happened
Luckie v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey concerns the parties’ request for rules protecting sensitive, nonpublic information exchanged during discovery. The parties agreed to the proposed order through their lawyers.
The order permits parties to label certain discovery materials confidential, including internal communications, grand-jury transcripts, personally identifying information, and specified personal, financial, medical, and work-product information. It limits disclosure to listed recipients, requires confidentiality agreements for some recipients, and allows parties to challenge confidentiality designations.
The court also set procedures for filing confidential materials, returning or destroying them after the case ends, and enforcing the order through contempt sanctions. Judge Edgardo Ramos found good cause and entered the protective order on May 15, 2023; the order did not decide the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- Luckie v. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey · No. 1:22-cv-06114
- Edgardo Ramos
- May 15, 2023
Background
The parties, through counsel, jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and sensitive information that might be produced during discovery. The court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Confidentiality Designations
A producing party may designate discovery material as confidential. The order identifies categories that may be designated, including:
- Agreements between The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and third parties; - Grand-jury testimony transcripts; - Internal Port Authority communications; - Documents containing personally identifying information; - Port Authority policies, announcements, directives, and advisories; - Internal work product of the Port Authority Office of Inspector General; - Plaintiff’s personal financial or medical information; - Personal or intimate information about an individual; - Other information designated in good faith during the litigation; and - Categories the court later gives confidential status.
The names and contact information of nonparty witnesses may also be designated as confidential. Designations generally must be marked clearly, and a redacted copy must be produced for future public use when applicable. Deposition testimony and exhibits may be designated during the deposition or within 30 days afterward; during that 30-day period, the entire deposition transcript must be treated as confidential.
A producing party may correct an earlier failure to designate material by notifying prior recipients in writing. The order states that confidentiality designations do not waive objections to discovery, privileges, or protections, and do not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial.
Permitted Disclosures and Use
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to the persons listed in the order, including the parties and their insurers, litigation counsel and their staff, outside vendors working on the case, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and recipients, potential witnesses, experts and specialized advisers, deposition transcriptionists, and the court and its personnel. Before disclosure to certain mediators, witnesses, or experts, the recipient must receive the order and sign the required nondisclosure agreement.
Recipients may use confidential material only to prosecute or defend this action 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, and it permits production in response to lawful compulsory process subject to notice requirements.
Court Filings and Challenges
A party seeking to file material under seal must publicly file a redacted version and submit the unredacted version under seal. The party must also file a letter brief and supporting declaration explaining, on a particularized basis, why continued sealing is justified. The court retains discretion over whether confidential treatment is appropriate for material submitted in connection with a motion or proceeding, and it warns that trial evidence is unlikely to remain sealed merely because it was previously designated confidential.
A party may object to a confidentiality designation before trial by written notice stating the grounds. If the dispute is not resolved, the affected parties must bring it to the court under the court’s individual practices. A party seeking additional limits, such as an “attorneys’ eyes only” restriction, must follow a similar procedure.
Disposition and Effect
The order requires recipients, within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, to return or—if the producing party permits—destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Litigation attorneys may retain specified archival materials, but those materials remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
Judge Edgardo Ramos entered the stipulated protective order. This order addressed discovery confidentiality and related procedures; it did not resolve the merits of the parties’ underlying claims.
Read the full 10-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.