Ahmad v. NYU Langone Health System
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- 1:22-cv-01248
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Ahmad v. NYU Langone, Judge Gorenstein issued confidentiality and clawback orders governing the parties’ discovery process.
The plaintiff, the defendants, their attorneys, and witnesses involved in the case’s discovery process.
What happened
In Ahmad v. NYU Langone Health System, the parties asked the court to approve proposed rules for protecting confidential discovery materials and recovering materials accidentally produced.
Because the parties could not agree, the court issued its own confidentiality and clawback orders. The court allowed confidential materials to be designated after they had already been produced and generally limited disclosure to witnesses being questioned during depositions, unless opposing counsel consented.
Judge Gorenstein also said Ahmad could ask the court for permission to show materials to another witness if the defendants would not agree. The order was issued on September 15, 2023, to advance discovery.
The detailed version
- Ahmad v. NYU Langone Health System · No. 1:22-cv-01248
- Gabriel Gorenstein
- Sept. 15, 2023
Background
The parties presented proposed orders governing discovery. One was a confidentiality order, which sets rules for designating and handling information as confidential. The defendants also proposed a “clawback” order, which governs the return or protection of materials that were produced inadvertently. The parties were unable to agree on stipulated orders, so the court issued its own orders.
Court’s Reasoning
The court stated that case law permits it to issue a confidentiality order without the parties’ agreement and that the same reasoning applies to a clawback order. The court noted that the plaintiff had made no substantive objection to the defendants’ proposed clawback order. It also found that allowing confidentiality designations for materials previously produced was consistent with the clawback order.
Because there was no agreement on disclosure to witnesses, the court limited disclosure to deponents—that is, witnesses during their depositions—unless opposing counsel consented. The court added that the plaintiff could apply for relief under paragraph 2.A of the court’s Individual Practices if it became necessary to show confidential material to another witness and the defendants did not consent.
Disposition
The court issued its own Confidentiality and Clawback Order and made additional changes to the parties’ proposed documents. The order addressed discovery management and did not decide the underlying claims in the case.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.