Carmody v. New York University

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided June 14, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-08186·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------- x : KRISTIN A. CARMODY, M.D., M.H.P.E, : : Plaintiff, : : -against- : : . : 21-CV-08186 (LGS) NEW YORK UNIVERSITY; NYU GROSSMAN : SCHOOL OF MEDICINE; NYU LANGONE : HOSPITALS; ROBERT I. GROSSMAN, M.D.; : FRITZ FRANCOIS, M.D.; STEVEN B. : ABRAMSON, M.D.; ANDREW W. BROTMAN, : M.D.; and ROBERT J. FEMIA, M.D., : : Defendants. : --------------------------------------------------------------- x

STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, U.S.D.J.:

WHEREAS, the parties to this action (collectively, the “Parties,” and individually, a “Party”) request that this Court issue a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) to protect the confidentiality of nonpublic or competitively sensitive information produced or disclosed in connection with discovery or other proceedings in this action (the “Action”); WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; and WHEREAS, this Court finds good cause exists for issuance of a protective order in this Action; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order — including, without limitation, the Parties (including their respective corporate parents, affiliates, successors, and assigns), each Party’s representatives, agents, experts and consultants, all third parties providing discovery in this Action, and all other interested persons with actual or constructive notice of this Order — shall adhere to the following terms: 1. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the Parties to this lawsuit, through their respective counsel, that this Stipulation and Order governs the use and handling of documents, exhibits, deposition testimony, interrogatory answers, responses to requests for admission, video and audio tapes and other information and documentation, including all copies, excerpts and summaries thereof (collectively, “Material”), produced by any Party to another Party in

connection with the above-captioned lawsuit (the “Action”). 2. Any Party may designate as “Confidential” and/or redact non-public Material or information that it produces in response to document requests or interrogatories served in this Action, or other discovery obligations herein, when such Party in good faith believes that the Material contains sensitive security, safety, financial, personal, medical, commercial or proprietary business information relating to such Party and/or that Party’s current or former patients, agents, and/or employees (“Confidential Material”). 3. Information is not Confidential and/or redactable if it has been publicly or otherwise disclosed by means not constituting a breach of this Order. Nothing in this Order shall affect or restrict the rights of any Party with respect to its own documents or information produced or provided

as Material in this Action. 4. Material that is designated as “Confidential Material” shall be used only for the purpose of the Action (including appeals, if any), and not for any other purpose whatsoever, and shall not be given, shown, made available or communicated in any way to anyone except those to whom it is necessary that such Material be given or shown for the purposes permitted under this paragraph 1, as set forth in subparagraphs (a) and (b) below. (a) Confidential Material and all copies, excerpts, or summaries thereof, may be disclosed, revealed, or otherwise made known, for the purposes set forth above, only to: (i) the Parties, (ii) counsel of record including employees working as agents of outside counsel, if any, in connection with this litigation; (iii) other counsel for the Parties in this litigation; (iv) the litigation forums in which the Action may proceed (including the Court, court reporters, and stenographic reporters); and

(v) witnesses, experts, contractors, agents, and consultants (each, individually, a “Non-party”) in preparation for or in pre-trial or trial proceedings relating to the Action. 6. Before disclosing any Material designated as “Confidential Material” to any person referred to in subparagraph 1(a) above, counsel must provide a copy of this Order to such person, who must sign the Non-Disclosure Agreement annexed as Exhibit A hereto stating that he or she has read this Order and agrees to be bound by its terms. Said counsel must retain each signed Non-Disclosure Agreement, hold it in escrow, and produce it to opposing counsel either before such person is permitted to testify (at deposition or trial) or at the conclusion of the

case, whichever comes first. Each Non-party referred to in subparagraph 1(a) above given access to Confidential Material pursuant to the terms hereof shall be advised that (a) the Confidential Material is being disclosed pursuant to and subject to the terms of this Order and may not be disclosed or used other than pursuant to the terms hereof; and (b) that the violation of the terms of this Order (by use of the Confidential Material in any impermissible manner) may constitute a violation of a Court order. Before a Non-party is given access to Confidential Material, he/she must read and agree in writing to be bound by the provisions of this Order. Each Party and its respective counsel agree to immediately notify counsel for all other Parties if it obtains knowledge or information that a Non-party is about to disclose, or has disclosed, Confidential Material to persons who have not agreed to be bound by the provisions of this Order. 7. Documents not marked “Confidential” that a Party produced prior to the execution of this Stipulation will be treated as Confidential Material, so long as the producing Party identifies by Bates stamp number to the other Party those documents that are to be treated as Confidential and/or stamped

the documents as “Confidential” to denote the designation. 8. Confidential Material shall be designated as follows: (a) In the case of documents, designation shall be made by placing the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” on each page of any such document prior to production. Confidential material may also or alternatively be designated as such by applying redactions. (b) In the case of depositions, designation of the portion of the transcript (including exhibits) that contains Confidential Material shall be made by a statement to such effect on the record during the course of the deposition or within two weeks after such deposition has been transcribed and received by counsel for the Parties. When designation of Confidential Material has been made during the course of a deposition, the reporter attending such deposition shall thereafter bind the

transcript thereof in separate portions containing the non-confidential Material and Confidential Material, and the reporter shall place the appropriate legend on the cover of the Confidential portions of the transcript if requested to do so by the Party making such statement. The signatories to this Stipulation and Order may modify this procedure for any particular deposition through agreement on the record at such deposition or within a reasonable time after the conclusion thereof, without a further order of the Court. 9. (a) The signatories hereto may at any time, on reasonable notice not less than two business days, move for (i) modification of this Stipulation and Order or (ii) relief from the provisions of this Stipulation and Order with respect to specific Material (subject to the terms of paragraph 9(b), below). (b) The Party that has not produced the Confidential Material shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of the designation of Material as Confidential Material at the time made, and failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereof. If the Party that has not

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carmody v. New York University, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Carmody v. New York University (Carmody v. New York University) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga
435 F.3d 110 (Second Circuit, 2006)