Cilus v. NYU Langone Hospitals
- 1:23-cv-00440
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Cilus v. NYU Langone Hospitals, the court issued a protective order governing confidential discovery.
Sophiana Cilus, NYU Langone Hospitals, their counsel, and other authorized people who receive confidential information in the case.
What happened
In Cilus v. NYU Langone Hospitals, the parties agreed to rules for protecting sensitive information and documents exchanged before trial.
The order covers confidential business information, personal identifying information, and documents protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product protection. It limits use and disclosure of that information to the litigation and sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations.
The court ordered the protective terms on May 19, 2023, while stating that it had not decided whether any particular document was confidential. The court also stated that filing a document under seal requires a separate court order.
The detailed version
- Cilus v. NYU Langone Hospitals · No. 1:23-cv-00440
- May 19, 2023
Background
The parties submitted an agreed protective order for information and documents exchanged during the pretrial phase of the case. The order allows a party’s lawyer to designate information as confidential when the lawyer determines in good faith that protection is needed for proprietary, trade-secret, sensitive, or other nonpublic information.
Protective-order terms
Information marked “CONFIDENTIAL” may be used only for this litigation. It generally may be disclosed only to the requesting party and counsel, necessary litigation staff, consultants or experts assisting with the case, and the court or people acting through the court. Before disclosure, the recipient must be told about the confidentiality requirements and must sign an agreement to follow the order.
A party may challenge another party’s confidentiality designation after the lawyers make a good-faith effort to resolve the dispute. A failure to mark information confidential when it is first produced does not waive the right to designate it later. Personally identifying information must be securely maintained and shared only with authorized people; the receiving party must immediately notify the producing party of a data breach. The order also states that accidentally or otherwise producing privileged or work-product-protected material does not waive that protection in this case or another federal or state proceeding.
Sealing and end of the case
The order does not create a presumption that confidential discovery materials may be filed under seal. The parties must follow the court’s procedures and obtain a prior court order before sealing documents. At the end of the litigation, confidential information must generally be returned or destroyed within 30 days after a final judgment is no longer subject to appeal, although counsel may retain protected working files.
Ruling
The court ordered the agreed protective terms after finding good cause under Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court expressly stated that it had not reviewed the documents and therefore made no finding that any particular document was confidential. That issue, if it arises, will be decided document by document under the court’s procedures and the presumption favoring public access to judicial documents.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.