Crespo v. Franco
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-07345
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Crespo v. Franco, Judge Castel entered a protective order governing confidential discovery materials and their use, disclosure, sealing, and destruction.
The plaintiffs, defendants, their attorneys, and other people or entities who receive confidential materials in Crespo v. Franco, including authorized experts, consultants, witnesses, and specified New York City offices.
What happened
Crespo v. Franco concerns a proposed agreement covering confidential documents that the parties intended to exchange during the case, including certain police personnel and disciplinary records, investigation records, and medical information.
The order limits use and disclosure of designated materials to preparing, presenting, or settling the case. It also establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, requires a separate court order before documents may be filed under seal, and addresses handling of confidential materials after the case ends.
Judge Kevin Castel ordered the protective arrangement, while retaining authority to enforce or modify it and to impose sanctions for contempt.
The detailed version
- Crespo v. Franco · No. 1:22-cv-07345
- P. Castel
- Sept. 11, 2023
Background
The parties submitted a stipulated proposed protective order under Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. They said they intended to produce documents they considered confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure and that protection was needed for those documents.
The order defines confidential materials to include certain New York City Police Department personnel, disciplinary, and investigation records that are not publicly accessible; the plaintiffs’ and defendants’ medical histories; and other documents or information designated in good faith by a party or the court during the litigation. Publicly available materials and materials obtained under the New York Freedom of Information Law or federal Freedom of Information Act are excluded from the definition.
Terms of the Order
A party may mark documents as confidential by stamping the pages or identifying the documents by Bates number. Confidential materials may be used only to evaluate, prepare, present, or settle claims or defenses in this action.
The order generally limits disclosure to parties, their attorneys and staff, experts or consultants retained for the case, certain witnesses, and the court. Defense attorneys may also disclose the materials to specified New York City offices when necessary for the defense or settlement of the action. Before most such disclosures, the recipient must receive the order and sign a written agreement not to use or further disclose the materials except as allowed by the order.
The order provides procedures for designating deposition testimony as confidential and for objecting to a designation. Materials remain confidential while the parties try to resolve an objection or until the court rules. An inadvertent failure to designate material does not waive a later confidentiality claim, and a party may later challenge a designation.
Confidentiality alone does not permit a filing under seal. A party must obtain a further court order addressing the specific documents or portions to be sealed and must submit an affidavit or affidavits and a memorandum of law addressing the applicable sealing standards, including the standards discussed in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga. The order also allows certain agreed redactions of personal, confidential, or identifying information without another court order when the information is not material to the issues addressed in the filing.
Ruling and Effect
The document states “SO ORDERED” and bears the signature of United States District Judge Kevin Castel. The protective order continues after the litigation ends, including after appeals. Confidential materials may not then be used or disclosed without prior court approval, and they may have to be destroyed at the producing party’s request. The court retains jurisdiction as needed to enforce the order or impose sanctions for contempt and reserves the ability to modify it.
The order’s dated line is blank in the supplied opinion text; September 11, 2023 is the provided filing date.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.