357-359 Sixth Ave. Associates, LLC v. United States Liability Insurance Company
- Robert Lehrburger
- 1:23-cv-00220
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 7
In 357-359 Sixth Ave. Associates v. United States Liability Insurance Company, Magistrate Judge Lehrburger issued a protective order governing confidential discovery.
The parties, their counsel and representatives, experts, consultants, litigation-support providers, certain witnesses and other authorized recipients, third parties providing discovery, and anyone with actual or constructive notice of the protective order.
What happened
In 357-359 Sixth Ave. Associates, LLC v. United States Liability Insurance Company, the parties jointly asked the court to protect certain non-public information exchanged during discovery.
The order permits confidentiality designations for limited categories of information, including certain financial, business, personal, and other information whose disclosure could cause harm. It restricts disclosure, sets procedures for challenging designations and handling accidentally disclosed privileged material, and explains that confidential information is not automatically entitled to be filed under seal.
The court found good cause and ordered the protective order. The order was signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger on October 10, 2023.
The detailed version
- 357-359 Sixth Ave. Associates, LLC v. United States Liability Insurance Company · No. 1:23-cv-00220
- Robert Lehrburger
- Oct. 10, 2023
Background
The parties jointly requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). They represented that discovery would involve confidential documents and information whose public disclosure could harm the producing person or a third party owed a duty of confidentiality. The order states that it provides only limited protection for information entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles and does not itself authorize filing material under seal.
Terms of the Order
The order allows a producing person to designate as confidential limited portions of discovery material whose disclosure is restricted by law or could harm business, commercial, financial, or personal interests. Listed categories include previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a non-public company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; and personal or intimate information.
People subject to the order generally may disclose confidential discovery material only to specified recipients, including the parties, insurers, counsel, litigation-support vendors, mediators or arbitrators, certain witnesses, experts, deposition reporters, and the court. Several categories of recipients must first sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this action and any appeals, not for business, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
The order establishes procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and requesting additional restrictions. It also addresses discovery subject to third-party confidentiality obligations, subpoenas or other compulsory process, personally identifying information, and accidental disclosure of material claimed to be protected by attorney-client privilege or the work-product doctrine. The order says accidental disclosure does not by itself waive those protections, while allowing the receiving party to seek a court order requiring production of the material.
The order does not decide whether evidence is admissible at trial and does not create a presumption that confidential discovery material will be sealed. Parties filing such material must publicly file a redacted version and separately file the unredacted version under seal, subject to the court’s sealing rules and discretion. The order continues after the litigation ends and generally requires return or destruction of confidential material within 30 days after final disposition, with limited archival-copy provisions for attorneys. Willful violations may result in contempt sanctions.
Ruling
The court found good cause to issue a tailored confidentiality order and ordered the parties and other covered persons to follow its terms. The order states “SO ORDERED” and is signed by United States Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger.
Read the full 7-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.