Doe v. Yeshiva University
- P. Castel
- 1:22-cv-05405
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Jane Doe v. Yeshiva University, Judge Castel entered a protective order governing discovery confidentiality.
Jane Doe, Yeshiva University, the other named defendants, and any parties or nonparties producing discovery in the action are subject to the order’s confidentiality and disclosure rules.
What happened
Jane Doe v. Yeshiva University concerns discovery in a case involving Jane Doe, Yeshiva University, and the other named defendants. The order was requested by Doe’s lawyer and entered with defendants’ consent to its form and entry.
The order allows discovery materials to be labeled confidential and limits their use to prosecuting or defending this case, including appeals. It covers information such as identities, business records, medical information, personnel data, student records, and material restricted by law.
Judge P. Kevin Castel entered the protective order on March 21, 2024. The order also sets procedures for challenging confidentiality labels, using confidential material in court filings, seeking permission to seal documents, and returning protected materials after the case ends.
The detailed version
- Doe v. Yeshiva University · No. 1:22-cv-05405
- P. Castel
- Mar. 21, 2024
What the Court Decided
The court entered a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c). A protective order sets rules for handling information exchanged during discovery. The order applies to information produced by any party or nonparty during discovery and permits its use only to prosecute or defend this action, including any appeals.
Confidential Information
The order allows a party to label discovery material “Confidential” when the party reasonably and in good faith believes it contains protected information. The listed categories include:
- Information that could reveal Jane Doe’s real name or identity, if her motion to proceed under a pseudonym is granted; - Information identifying witnesses or other people who allege that they were raped or sexually assaulted by a Yeshiva University student or employee; - Information identifying Yeshiva University students or former students who filed or tried to file Title IX rape or sexual-assault complaints with the university; - Commercial, financial, business, proprietary, and trade-secret information; - Medical or mental-health information about Yeshiva University students other than Doe; - Personnel, employment, medical, counseling, educational, discipline, and performance records; - Admissions files and other records concerning Yeshiva University students other than Doe; and - Records whose disclosure is restricted or prohibited by statute.
The order states that its provisions do not apply to information identifying Perry Doe or another Yeshiva University student accused of being the subject of a rape or sexual-assault complaint, as described in the order’s footnote and paragraph 4.
Limits on Disclosure and Use
Confidential material may generally be disclosed only to the parties and their personnel, lawyers and litigation staff, necessary deposition or trial witnesses, qualifying outside experts and consultants who sign the required agreement, and deposition stenographers. The material may be used only for this litigation and may not be used for business, governmental, commercial, administrative, or other judicial proceedings.
The order also covers copies, summaries, deposition testimony, exhibits, and court papers that discuss or refer to confidential material. Experts must sign Exhibit A before receiving the material. That agreement bars unauthorized disclosure, copying, and public statements about the case and allegations against defendants.
Challenges and Court Filings
A party challenging a confidentiality designation must first confer in good faith with the designating party and identify the challenged material and the basis for the objection. If the dispute is not resolved, the challenging party may move for a court ruling after giving the required notice. The material remains confidential while the challenge is pending.
Confidential material may be discussed in court papers or used at hearings or trial only if it is marked confidential and separately submitted under seal after the party complies with the order’s sealing procedures. The order states that no document may be filed under seal without a further court order addressing the specific material. An application to seal must include supporting affidavits and a legal memorandum addressing the standards for sealing, including the cited Second Circuit authority.
Duration and Enforcement
The order applies to confidential material produced before as well as after its entry. Its protections continue after the action ends, including after appeals. After termination, the parties must return confidential documents and related copies, extracts, and summaries to the producing party, except that each party’s counsel may keep one copy of each court-filed pleading or paper.
The order does not admit that any material is or is not confidential, discoverable, or admissible. A party may seek relief from the court if the order is breached, and any party may seek to modify or terminate the order through motion practice. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered the order on March 21, 2024.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.