Doe v. Sarah Lawrence College

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 2, 2020·No. 7:19-cv-10028·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK _______________________________________________

JANE DOE Civil Case No. 7:19-cv-10028(PMH)

Plaintiff, v. STIPULATED CONFIDENTIALITY SARAH LAWRENCE COLLEGE, AGREEMENT AND CRISTLE COLLINS JUDD, PROTECTIVE ORDER ALLEN GREEN, DANIEL TRUJILLO, PAIGE CRANDALL, and BEVERLY FOX

Defendants.

_______________________________________________

PHILIP M. HALPERN, United States District Judge: WHEREAS, all 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 and competitively sensitive information that they may need to disclose in connection with discovery in this action; WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms; and WHEREAS, this Court finds good cause exists for issuance of an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Order – including without limitation the Parties to this action (including their respective corporate parents, successors, and assigns), their 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 — will adhere to the following terms, upon pain of contempt: 1. With respect to “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed in the course of discovery in this action) that a person has designated as “Confidential” pursuant to this Order, no person subject to this Order may disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as this Order expressly permits:

2. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing Party”) may designate as Confidential only the portion of such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) previously non-disclosed financial information (including without limitation profitability reports or estimates, percentage fees, design fees, royalty rates, minimum guarantee payments, sales reports, and sale margins); (b) previously non-disclosed material relating to ownership or control of any non- public company; (c) previously non-disclosed business plans, product-development information, or marketing plans;

(d) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; or (e) any other category of information this Court subsequently affords confidential status. (f) Moreover, nothing herein is intended to limit or modify the Court’s prior determinations that good cause exists to protect the names and identities of plaintiff and all other non-party students. See Dkt. 5, 8. The parties shall continue to treat as Confidential all documents reflecting the name(s) of plaintiff and/or non-party students, as well as documents whose content could reasonably lead a third-party to discover those individuals’ identities. To the extent such documents are filed with the Court, they shall be filed under seal, with courtesy copies provided to the Court and counsel electronically. Because this Court has previously determined that good cause exists to do so, counsel need not comply with the requirements of Paragraph 9 of this Order when filing Confidential

materials subject to this subparagraph 2(f). 3. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the Producing Party or its counsel may designate such portion as “Confidential” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as “Confidential” the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; and (b) producing for future public use another copy of said Discovery Material with the confidential information redacted. 4. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or portions of deposition transcripts as Confidential Discovery Material either by: (a) indicating on the record during the deposition that a question calls for Confidential information, in which case the

reporter will bind the transcript of the designated testimony in a separate volume and mark it as “Confidential Information Governed by Protective Order;” or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after a deposition has concluded, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be designated “Confidential,” in which case all counsel receiving the transcript will be responsible for marking the copies of the designated transcript in their possession or under their control as directed by the Producing Party or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following a deposition, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated Confidential. 5. If at any time before the trial of this action a Producing Party realizes that it should have designated as Confidential some portion(s) of Discovery Material that it previously produced without limitation, the Producing Party may so designate such material by so apprising all prior recipients in writing. Thereafter, this Court and all persons subject to this Order will

treat such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material as Confidential. 6. Nothing contained in this Order will be construed as: (a) a waiver by a Party or person of its right to object to any discovery request; (b) a waiver of any privilege or protection; or (c) a ruling regarding the admissibility at trial of any document, testimony, or other evidence. 7. Where a Producing Party has designated Discovery Material as Confidential, other persons subject to this Order may disclose such information only to the following persons: 8. Before disclosing any Confidential Discovery Material to any person referred to in subparagraphs 7(d), 7(f), or 7(g) above, counsel must provide a copy of this Order to such person, who must sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form annexed as an Exhibit 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. 9. In accordance with Rule 5 of this Court’s Individual Practices, any party filing documents under seal must simultaneously file with the Court a letter brief and supporting declaration justifying – on a particularized basis – the continued sealing of such documents. The parties should be aware that the Court will unseal documents if it is unable to make “specific, on the record findings . . . demonstrating that closure is essential to preserve higher values and is narrowly tailored to serve that interest.” Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 120 (2d Cir. 2006). 10. The Court also retains discretion whether to afford confidential treatment to any Discovery Material designated as Confidential and submitted to the Court in connection with any

motion, application, or proceeding that may result in an order and/or decision by the Court. All persons are hereby placed on notice that the Court is unlikely to seal or otherwise afford confidential treatment to any Discovery Material introduced in evidence at trial, even if such material has previously been sealed or designated as Confidential. 11.

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

Doe v. Sarah Lawrence College, (S.D.N.Y. 2020).

Doe v. Sarah Lawrence College (Doe v. Sarah Lawrence College) — 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)