D. K. v. Teams

Background

The matter concerned a request to modify a confidentiality order entered in an earlier related proceeding. Z.O. was a plaintiff in both the earlier proceeding and a separate action. In the separate action, Z.O. alleged that staff members and supervisors at the Union Avenue IRA, described as a state-run group home for people with developmental disabilities, failed to provide appropriate care to prevent a fatal bowel impaction. Z.O. also alleged that the treatment was connected to the earlier proceeding, which involved allegations of physical and psychological abuse at the group home.

Discovery in the earlier proceeding included documents and deposition testimony about the alleged abuse and the group home’s response. Much of that discovery was marked “Confidential.” The earlier confidentiality order limited disclosure to the court, parties, counsel, witnesses, experts, and support personnel directly involved in that proceeding. Because the two proceedings did not have identical parties, the existing order did not permit Z.O. to provide the confidential materials to defendants in the separate action.

Request to Modify the Confidentiality Order

The plaintiff asked the court to modify the earlier order so she could produce documents marked “Confidential” to defendants in the separate action. The plaintiff requested that the materials remain marked “Confidential” and receive confidential treatment under the protective order governing discovery in the separate action. The letter stated that the two proceedings involved related events at the same group home and had some overlapping parties.

The earlier confidentiality order authorized modification by court order on a party’s motion. The letter also stated that defendants in the separate action neither consented to nor objected to the request. L.K., identified as D.K.’s sister and legal guardian, consented to the production of the confidential materials. The request was made under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), which permits protective orders concerning discovery.

Ruling

Judge Paul A. Engelmayer granted the request to modify the confidentiality order. The ruling permitted production of documents marked “Confidential” in the earlier proceeding to defendants in the separate action, subject to continued confidential treatment under the protective order in that action.

The court also granted the motion to seal limited redactions in Exhibit 2 attached to the letter-motion, pending at Docket 497. The opinion does not specify the content of those redactions.