Gaylan v. Maersk Line, Limited
- Gregory Woods
- 1:23-cv-02501
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 9
In Gaylan v. Maersk Line, Judge Cott entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials.
The parties, their counsel, and other people who receive or have access to discovery material designated as confidential in this action.
What happened
In Gaylan v. Maersk Line, the parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information they might exchange during discovery. The parties agreed to the order's terms, and the court found good cause to issue it.
The order limits disclosure of properly designated confidential discovery materials to specified people, including the parties, lawyers, certain service providers, witnesses, experts, and the court. The materials may be used only for this lawsuit and related appeals, and recipients generally must return or destroy them within 60 days after the case and appeals end.
Judge James L. Cott entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order on July 13, 2023. The order does not decide the case's underlying claims, does not rule on evidence admissibility, and does not make a final finding that designated materials are confidential.
The detailed version
- Gaylan v. Maersk Line, Limited · No. 1:23-cv-02501
- Gregory Woods
- July 13, 2023
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They sought protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery in the action brought by Filomeno Gaylan against Maersk Line, Limited and Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association. The parties, through counsel, agreed to the proposed terms.
Order's Terms
The court ordered the parties and other people subject to the order to protect discovery material designated as confidential. A producing party may designate only material it reasonably and in good faith believes includes previously undisclosed financial information, information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company, business or marketing information, personal or intimate information, or another category later given confidential status by the court.
The order restricts disclosure of designated material to listed categories of recipients, including the parties and their insurers, counsel and litigation support staff, outside vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain people identified in documents, potential witnesses, experts, deposition stenographers, and the court. Witnesses, experts, mediators, and arbitrators must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recipients may use the material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals.
The order establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, requesting additional limits such as attorneys'-eyes-only treatment, and filing confidential material with the court. Public filings generally must include a redacted version, while an unredacted version may be filed under seal if the party makes the required particularized showing. The court cautioned that it had not decided that any designated material was confidential and might not seal material introduced at trial.
Within 60 days after final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential discovery material and certify that they have not kept copies or other reproductions. Lawyers specifically retained for the action may keep an archival copy of specified case materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. The order continues after the litigation ends, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it or impose contempt sanctions.
Disposition
The court found good cause and entered the stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order. This was a discovery-related procedural order; it did not resolve the parties' underlying claims or decide the admissibility of any evidence.
Read the full 9-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.