B.M. v. Gonzalez
- Valerie Caproni
- 1:22-cv-02658
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 17
In B.M. v. Gonzalez, Judge Caproni denied without prejudice an application to share confidential discovery and ordered a short explanatory letter.
The plaintiff and defendants in B.M. v. Gonzalez, and potentially the parties and guardians connected to the earlier related proceeding whose confidential discovery materials were at issue.
What happened
In B.M. v. Gonzalez, the plaintiff asked to use documents and testimony marked confidential in a prior related proceeding, No. 16 Civ. 3246, in this case. The plaintiff said the materials concerned related events and involved some of the same people and that they would remain confidential under this case’s discovery order.
The plaintiff asked the court to change the confidentiality order from the earlier proceeding so the materials could be provided to defendants in this case. The defendants neither consented to nor objected to the application, according to the filing.
The court denied the application without prejudice and ordered the plaintiff to file a letter of no more than three pages explaining why the request was properly made in this case rather than in the earlier case. Judge Valerie Caproni set January 24, 2024, as the filing deadline.
The detailed version
- B.M. v. Gonzalez · No. 1:22-cv-02658
- Valerie Caproni
- Jan. 17, 2024
Background
The plaintiff, B.M., as administrator of the estate of her sister Z.O., brought the present action against Elizabeth Gonzalez and other defendants. The filing described Z.O. as having died after allegedly not receiving appropriate care to prevent a fatal bowel impaction at the Union Avenue IRA, a state-run group home for people with developmental disabilities. The filing further alleged that the treatment may have been retaliation for a prior related proceeding involving Z.O. and other residents of the group home.
Discovery in the earlier proceeding was governed by a confidentiality order. That order limited disclosure of materials marked confidential to specified people involved in that litigation. Because the present case includes some different parties, the filing stated that the existing order did not permit the plaintiff to provide those materials to defendants in the present case.
Application
The plaintiff asked the court to modify the earlier confidentiality order so that documents and deposition testimony marked confidential could be produced to defendants in this case. The plaintiff proposed that the materials remain marked confidential and receive protection under the qualified confidentiality order governing discovery in the present action. The filing stated that defendants neither consented to nor objected to the application.
The plaintiff argued that the request was authorized by the earlier order and that sharing discovery in related cases could avoid duplicative discovery and delay. The filing also stated that L.K., the sister and legal guardian of D.K., one of the other plaintiffs in the earlier proceeding, consented to sharing the materials. The filing reported that counsel had been unable to obtain paperwork verifying the current legal guardian of B.R., another plaintiff in the earlier proceeding, although relatives reportedly indicated by telephone that they would consent.
Ruling
Judge Valerie Caproni ordered: “Application DENIED without prejudice.” The court directed the plaintiff to file a letter of no more than three pages showing why the motion was appropriately made in the current case rather than in the earlier case in which the confidentiality order was entered. The letter had to be filed by January 24, 2024.
The opinion therefore resolved the application’s procedural filing issue and did not decide whether the confidential materials ultimately could be shared.
Read the full 17-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.