Doe v. Kimmel

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York
DecidedJanuary 29, 2025
Docket1:24-cv-03201
StatusUnknown

This text of Doe v. Kimmel (Doe v. Kimmel) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doe v. Kimmel, (S.D.N.Y. 2025).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JANE DOE, Plaintiff, — against — No. 1:24-cv-03201 (JMF) BRETT KIMMEL; and NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, Defendants.

STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHEREAS, Plaintiff Jane Doe, Defendant Brett Kimmel, and Defendant New York City Department of Education (“DOE”) (together, the “Parties’”) have agreed to produce certain documents, including without limitation confidential, proprietary, or otherwise sensitive information, documentation, or files; WHEREAS, discovery in and trial of the above-captioned action may require the production and use of documents and/or other information pursuant to Rules 26, 30, 33, and 34 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that contain information deemed confidential, private, or otherwise inappropriate for public disclosure; WHEREAS, on June 26, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion to proceed under the pseudonym “Jane Doe” “in light of the highly sensitive and personal nature of this case.” See ECF No. 19; WHEREAS, good cause exists for the entry of a protective order, pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for the Parties, as follows:

1. As used herein, “Action” shall mean the pending action captioned Doe v. Kimmel, 24-cv-03201 (JMF). 2. As used herein, the term “document” shall have the meaning set forth in Rule 34(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3. Either party may designate documents produced in connection with this Action as “Confidential,” by clear notation on the document in a manner so as not to interfere with the legibility thereof, or, only if that is not feasible, may designate such documents by title or Bates number, in a writing directed to the Receiving Party’s attorneys. 4. As used herein, “Confidential Materials” shall mean medical and mental health records; financial records, including but not limited to tax records, bank records, real property records, descriptions and/or valuations of other tangible assets, and corporate or trust documents; any material containing Plaintiff Jane Doe’s legal name or the names of her family members; any disclosure by a non-party that he or she have also experienced sexual abuse or a sexual assault; or other information pertaining to emotional, psychological, or interpersonal damages arising from this case. . 5. As used herein, “Personal Identifying Information” shall mean any party’s address, phone number, email address, social media handle, or social security number. 6. The parties’ attorneys and non-parties permitted to view Confidential Materials as outlined infra { 10 shall not use Confidential Materials for any purpose other than for the preparation, settlement, or presentation of this Action. 7. “Producing Party” shall mean the party producing “Confidential Materials.” 8. “Receiving Party” shall mean the party receiving “Confidential Materials.” 9. In the event a party disagrees at any stage of these proceedings with the Producing Party’s designation of Confidential Materials, the party disagreeing with the

-2-

Producing Party’s designation of Confidential Materials (the “Disagreeing Party”) shall notify the Producing Party of such disagreement in writing no later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery. The Parties shall first try to dispose of such disputes in good faith on an informal basis. If the dispute cannot be resolved within 30 days, the Producing Party must seek relief from the Court allowing the Producing Party to designate the materials in question as Confidential Materials. The Producing Party’s failure to seek relief from the Court within 60 days of the Disagreeing Party’s written notice of its disagreement about the designation shall constitute a waiver of the asserted confidentiality. The party asserting confidentiality shall bear the burden of demonstrating the propriety of the designation to the satisfaction of the Court. If the Producing Party seeks relief from the Court within the time period set forth above, until any dispute under this paragraph is resolved either informally or ruled upon by the Court, the Producing Party’s initial designation shall remain in full force and effect and the information shall continue to be accorded the confidential treatment required under this Order. 10. Except with the prior written consent of the Producing Party or by Order of the Court, Confidential Materials shall not be furnished, shown, or disclosed to any person or entity except to: a. the Parties and personnel of the Parties engaged in assisting in the preparation of this Action for trial or other proceeding herein and who have been advised of their obligations hereunder; b. counsel for the Parties to this Action and their associated attorneys, paralegals, and other professional personnel (including support staff); c. any third-party vendor providing photocopying, data processing, or graphic production services hired by counsel to assist in discovery management and/or trial preparation;

-3-

d. the Court and Court personnel; e. an officer before whom a deposition is taken, including stenographic reporters and any necessary secretarial, clerical, or other personnel of such officer; f. deposition or trial witnesses, to the extent reasonably necessary in connection with their potential testimony or in preparation therefor; and g. an expert, and members of the expert’s staff, who has been retained or specifically employed by counsel in anticipation of litigation or preparation of this Action (including consulting experts). 11. Except with the prior written consent of the Producing Party or by Order of the Court, Personal Identifying Information shall not be furnished, shown, or disclosed to any person or entity except to, and shall be designated as “Attorneys’ Eyes Only” and disclosure shall be limited to counsel for the Parties to this Action and their associated attorneys, paralegals, and other professional personnel (including support staff) and any experts and members of the experts staff who have been retained by counsel regarding this action. Any document created by counsel, experts, or their respective staff shall have Personal Identifying Information redacted before showing said document to a Party. 12. Before any disclosure is made pursuant to sections 10(f)-(g) above, the Receiving Party’s attorney shall provide each such person with a copy of this Stipulation and Protective Order, and such person shall consent in writing, in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit A, to be bound by the terms of this Stipulation and Order. The signed consent shall be retained by that party’s attorneys and a copy shall be furnished to the Producing Party upon request, although the name of an expert that the Receiving Party does not intend to call as a trial witness may be redacted from such consent before it is produced. Nothing in this provision shall require disclosure by a party of the identity of non-testifying experts and/or consultants.

-4-

13. □ A party that seeks to file any paper that incorporates any Confidential Materials or reveals the contents thereof with the Court shall so inform the other party prior to filing. The Parties shall confer in good faith to resolve the matter as soon as is practicable; if the Parties agree to utilize redacted copies of such documents or if the Parties agree that unredacted versions of the materials may be filed publicly, no further order of the Court is necessary.

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

Related

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Doe v. Kimmel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-kimmel-nysd-2025.