DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York
- Gregory Woods
- 1:21-cv-07564
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 12
In DoorDash v. City of New York, Judge Woods entered a protective order governing confidential discovery.
The plaintiffs DoorDash, Inc., Grubhub Inc., and Portier, LLC; the City of New York; their counsel, personnel, witnesses, experts, vendors, and other people with actual notice who receive or access discovery material; and the court.
What happened
DoorDash, Grubhub, and Portier sued the City of New York, and all parties asked the court to protect nonpublic and competitively sensitive information exchanged during discovery. The order does not describe the underlying claims.
The order allows parties to mark certain financial, business, personal, governmental, proprietary, and other sensitive information as confidential. It limits disclosure to specified people, requires protections for personal identifying information, and sets procedures for challenging confidentiality designations and filing confidential material with the court.
Judge Woods ordered the parties and other people with notice of the order to follow these requirements, subject to contempt. The order does not decide whether any information is actually confidential, whether evidence is admissible, or the merits of the lawsuit.
The detailed version
- DoorDash, Inc. v. City Of New York · No. 1:21-cv-07564
- Gregory Woods
- Mar. 5, 2024
Order and purpose
The court entered a stipulated confidentiality agreement and protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). The parties requested protection for nonpublic and competitively sensitive information that might be disclosed during discovery, and the court found good cause for an appropriately tailored order governing the pretrial phase of the action.
Confidential information
A producing party may designate discovery material as confidential when it reasonably and in good faith believes the material includes previously undisclosed financial information; information about ownership or control of a nonpublic company; business, product-development, or marketing plans; personal or intimate information; nonpublic governmental, sensitive, or personal information; proprietary or trade-secret information; or other information for which confidentiality is necessary to protect a party or nonparty. The order requires confidential material to be marked, and it permits later correction of an omitted designation or removal of a designation.
Who may receive the material
Confidential discovery material may be disclosed only to specified recipients, including counsel and necessary litigation employees, certain internal counsel and employees, mediators or arbitrators, document authors and addressees, potential witnesses, experts, litigation-support personnel, the court, and others approved in writing by the producing party. Many recipients must first receive a copy of the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Recipients may use the material only to prosecute or defend this action and related appeals, subject to the order’s provisions concerning a party’s own information and information independently obtained by the City.
Personal information, court filings, and challenges
Recipients must securely maintain personally identifying information and notify the producing party within 48 hours after learning of a data breach. Parties filing confidential material with the court must publicly file a redacted version and separately seek permission to file an unredacted version under seal, with a particularized justification. The order states that the court may unseal material if it cannot make specific findings that sealing is essential and narrowly tailored. Parties may object to confidentiality designations or request additional disclosure limits, such as attorneys’ eyes-only treatment, and must bring unresolved disputes to the court under its individual practices.
End of the case and enforcement
Within 60 days after the final disposition of the action, including appeals, recipients generally must return or destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or other reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the action may keep certain archival litigation materials, which remain subject to the order. The order survives termination of the litigation, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce it and impose contempt sanctions.
What the order did not decide
The court stated that the order does not waive objections to discovery, waive privilege or other protection, or decide whether any document, testimony, or other evidence is admissible at trial. It also stated that the court made no finding that designated material is actually confidential and may decide later whether to give such material confidential treatment.
Read the full 12-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.