Samuels v. City of New York
- Barbara Moses
- 1:22-cv-01904
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 8
In Samuels v. City of New York, Judge Moses entered a protective order governing confidential discovery and nondisclosure in the case.
The parties, their representatives, agents, attorneys, experts, consultants, insurers, litigation-support providers, mediators, arbitrators, witnesses, third parties providing discovery, and other persons or entities with actual or constructive notice of the order.
What happened
In Samuels v. City of New York, the parties asked the court to establish rules protecting non-public and confidential information exchanged during discovery. The court found good cause for a tailored order because disclosure could harm the producing person or entity or a third party with confidentiality rights.
The order limits disclosure of designated confidential discovery material to specified people, including the parties, attorneys, certain vendors, witnesses, experts, mediators, and the court. It also creates procedures for challenging confidentiality designations, handling accidentally disclosed privileged information, protecting personal identifying information, filing materials with redactions or under seal, and returning or destroying confidential materials after the case ends.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the protective order on May 13, 2024. The order does not automatically allow materials to be filed under seal, does not decide admissibility or waive discovery objections or privileges, and states that willful violations may lead to contempt sanctions.
The detailed version
- Samuels v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01904
- Barbara Moses
- May 13, 2024
Background
The plaintiff is Simone Samuels. The defendants are the City of New York and the New York City Department of Transportation. Through their attorneys, the parties requested a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) because discovery would involve confidential documents or information. The court found good cause for an appropriately limited order governing the pretrial phase of the case.
Protective-order terms
The order defines “Discovery Material” as information produced or disclosed during discovery. A person or entity may designate only material whose public disclosure is restricted by law or would, in the designator’s good-faith judgment, harm protected interests. Those interests include proprietary, governmental, and privacy interests. Public information, information already properly possessed by the receiving party, and information obtained independently on a non-confidential basis are not made confidential by the order.
Recipients generally may disclose designated confidential material only to specified people, including the parties and their insurers; attorneys and their staff; litigation-support vendors; mediators or arbitrators; certain people identified in a document; potential witnesses; experts and other specialized advisers; deposition transcription staff; and the court. Certain recipients must first receive the order and sign a nondisclosure agreement. Confidential material may be used only to prosecute or defend this case and related appeals, not for business, commercial, competitive, or unrelated litigation purposes.
The order establishes procedures for designating documents and deposition testimony as confidential, correcting an earlier failure to designate material, and objecting to a designation. A party seeking additional restrictions, such as attorneys’-eyes-only treatment in extraordinary circumstances, must give written notice stating the grounds for the request.
Court filings, privilege, and personal information
The order does not automatically permit confidential discovery material to be filed under seal. A party seeking to seal documents must first file a motion explaining the basis for sealing, and the parties must minimize sealing. The court retains discretion over confidential treatment of material submitted with motions or other proceedings and states that it is unlikely to seal material introduced as trial evidence.
When confidential material is filed, the parties must publicly file a redacted copy and simultaneously file an unredacted copy under seal with proposed redactions highlighted. The order also protects personally identifying information, including Social Security numbers, financial-account numbers, passwords, and information that could be used for identity theft. A recipient experiencing a data breach must immediately notify the producing person and cooperate in addressing it.
If privileged or attorney-work-product material is disclosed, the disclosure does not waive the protection. The receiving party must return or destroy the material within five business days after a privilege claim and provide a certification. The disclosing party must then provide a privilege log, and the receiving party may ask the court to compel production. The disclosing party retains the burden of establishing that the material is privileged or otherwise protected.
Duration and ruling
The protective order remains in effect after the litigation ends. Within 30 days after final disposition, recipients must return or, with the producing person’s permission, destroy confidential material and certify that they have not retained copies or reproductions. Attorneys specifically retained for the case may keep archival copies of specified case-related materials, but those copies remain subject to the order. Willful violations may result in contempt sanctions, and the court retains jurisdiction to enforce the order. The order is not binding on the court or court personnel, and the court reserves the right to amend it.
Judge Barbara Moses ordered the protective order on May 13, 2024.
Read the full 8-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.