Esqueda, M.D. v. NYU Langone Hospitals

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided September 8, 2022·No. 1:21-cv-10267·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JONATHAN L. GARCIA ESQUEDA, M.D.

Plaintiff, Case No. 21-cv-10267-JMF

– against – STIPULATED NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS, NABIL N. DAGHER, CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER M.D., in his corporate and individual capacities, H. LEON PACHTER, M.D. F.A.C.S, in his corporate and individual capacities, ZOE STEWART-LEWIS, MD, in her corporate and individual capacities, BRUCE GELB, MD, in his individual and corporate capacities, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, in their corporate and individual capacities,

Defendants.

WHEREAS, this matter having come before the Court by stipulation of Plaintiff, Jonathan L. Garcia Esqueda, M.D. (“Plaintiff”), and Defendants, NYU Langone Health f/k/a NYU Hospitals Center s/h/a “NYU Langone Hospitals” (“NYULH”), Nabil N. Dagher, M.D., H. Leon Pachter, M.D., Zoe A. Stewart Lewis, M.D., Ph.D., Bonnie E. Lonze, M.D., Ph.D., and Bruce E. Gelb, M.D. (collectively, “Defendants”), (Plaintiff and Defendants are each individually referred to herein as a “Party” and collectively referred to herein as the “Parties”), for the entry of a protective order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), limiting the review, copying, dissemination and filing of confidential and proprietary documents and information to be produced by either Party and their respective counsel or by any non-party in the course of discovery in this matter to the extent set forth below; and the Parties by and between and among their respective counsel having stipulated and agreed to the terms set forth herein, and good cause having been shown; IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Stipulated Confidentiality Order (the “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. A Party may designate all or portions of any information, materials, or documents

produced or furnished by that Party pursuant to discovery or otherwise during the course of this litigation as “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” subject to the terms of this Order. 2. 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” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 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. 3. The Party or person producing or disclosing Discovery Material (“Producing

Party”) may designate as “Confidential” only such material that it reasonably and in good faith believes consists of: (a) trade secrets or other information of a non-public nature considered by the Producing Party to be commercially or personally sensitive, confidential and/or proprietary, including, but not limited to, any NYULH patient care, fiscal, or personnel information; or (b) other competitively sensitive or proprietary research, analysis, development, marketing, financial or commercial information, including, but not limited to, any NYULH patient care, fiscal, or personnel information. 4. Information designated as “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only” shall be disclosed only to in-house and outside attorneys for the Parties to this action, their authorized secretarial and legal assistant staff and to outside experts retained or consulted with by the Parties or their attorneys for purposes of this litigation. No documents or information designated “Confidential – Attorneys Eyes Only” shall be disclosed to any individual Party to this action or to any officer, director or employee of any Party who is not an attorney, except by written stipulation of the Parties or by order of the Court, pursuant to the procedure set forth herein.

5. 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” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking as Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 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. 6. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material, which are NYULH documents or information, produced by or on behalf of any Party or non-party, NYU or its counsel may designated such documents or information Confidential or Confidential –

Attorneys’ Eyes Only. 7. A Producing Party or its counsel may designate deposition exhibits or portions of deposition transcripts as “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 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” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” or (b) notifying the reporter and all counsel of record, in writing, within 30 days after receiving a copy of the deposition transcript, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript that are to be designated “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” 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, all Parties will treat the entire deposition transcript as if it had been designated “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only.” 8. A Party shall not be obligated to challenge the propriety of a designation of

“Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only” at the time made, and a failure to do so shall not preclude a subsequent challenge thereto. In the event that any Party to this litigation disagrees at any stage of these proceedings with the designation of “Confidential” or “Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” the Parties shall try first to dispose of such dispute in good faith on an informal basis. If any party receiving material marked “Confidential or Confidential Attorneys’ Eyes Only” objects, to the producing party, in writing to the designation thereof, the producing party may request a ruling from the court to maintain said material as Confidential. If the producing party does not make such a request within seven (7) days of the receipt of the other party’s written objection, then the issue will be deemed waived by the producing party and said

material will not be deemed Confidential or Confidential Attorneys Eyes Only. The parties will maintain said material as Confidential in accordance with this stipulation pending a determination by the court on the producing party’s request. The Party opposing such designation shall not object to the designating Party filing the information at issue with the Court under seal in order for the Court to resolve the matter. 9. 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. 10.

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

Esqueda, M.D. v. NYU Langone Hospitals, (S.D.N.Y. 2022).

Esqueda, M.D. v. NYU Langone Hospitals (Esqueda, M.D. v. NYU Langone Hospitals) — 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)