Everett v. New York City Department of Education

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided July 8, 2024·No. 1:21-cv-07043·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x STEPHANIE N. EVERETT, Plaintiff, 21-cv-07043 (JPC) - against - STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ET AL. Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------- x JOHN P. CRONAN, District Judge:

WHEREAS, all of 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 certain non-public and confidential material that will be exchanged pursuant to and during the course of discovery in this case;

WHEREAS, the Parties, through counsel, agree to the following terms;

WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that this Protective Order does not confer blanket protection on all disclosures or responses to discovery, and that the protection it affords only extends to the limited information or items that are entitled, under the applicable legal principles, to confidential treatment;

WHEREAS, the Parties further acknowledge that this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and

WHEREAS, in light of the foregoing, and based on the representations of the Parties that discovery in this case will involve confidential documents or information, the public disclosure of which would cause harm to the producing person and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed, and to protect against injury caused by dissemination of confidential documents and information, this Court finds good cause to issue an appropriately tailored confidentiality order governing the pretrial phase of this action;

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that any person subject to this Protective Order—including, without limitation, the Parties to this action, 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 Protective Order—shall adhere to the following terms: 1. Any person subject to this Protective Order who receives from any other person subject to this Protective Order any “Discovery Material” (i.e., information of any kind produced or disclosed pursuant to and in the course of discovery in this action) that is designated “Confidential” pursuant to the terms of this Protective Order (hereinafter, “Confidential Discovery Material”) shall not disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder.

2. The person producing any given Discovery Material may designate Confidential only such portion of such material the public disclosure of which is either restricted by law or, in the good-faith judgment of the person disclosing the Discovery Material, would cause harm to the business, commercial, financial, governmental, or personal interests of the producing party and/or a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed and that 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) trade secrets, proprietary business, governmental or sensitive information;

(e) any information of a personal or intimate nature regarding any individual; (f) other information the disclosure of which would, in the good-faith judgment of the disclosing Party or, as appropriate, non-party designating the material as confidential, if disclosed to a Party to this action, a non-party, or to the public in general, cause harm or be detrimental to the conduct of the disclosing Party’s or non-party’s business or other proprietary or privacy interest of any of that Party’s or non-party’s employees, customers, clients, vendors, agents, or stakeholders; or (g) any other category of information hereinafter given Confidential status by the Court.

3. Nothing herein shall impose any additional confidentiality obligation upon: (i) information that was or is in the public domain; (ii) information that already was in the possession of the receiving party in the form in which it was produced; (iii) information known to the receiving party through proper means; or (iv) information obtained by a party from a source other than the disclosing party who is or was rightfully in possession of such information on a non-confidential basis.

4. With respect to the Confidential portion of any Discovery Material other than deposition transcripts and exhibits, the producing person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion Confidential by: (a) stamping or otherwise clearly marking Confidential the protected portion in a manner that will not interfere with legibility or audibility; and (b) if a party seeks to file any Discovery Material containing Confidential information with the Court, then within 10 business days after the filing party requests the producing party redact such Confidential information, the producing party will redact the Confidential information for the filing party to file, unless such information was redacted at the time of production.

5. With respect to deposition transcripts, a producing person or that person’s counsel may designate such portion Confidential 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 (consisting of both question and answer) 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 of the conclusion of a deposition, of the specific pages and lines of the transcript and/or the specific exhibits 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 or exhibit (as the case may be) in their possession or under their control as directed by the producing person or that person’s counsel. During the 30-day period following the conclusion of a deposition, the entire deposition transcript will be treated as if it had been designated Confidential.

6. If at any time prior to the trial of this action, a producing person realizes that some portion(s) of Discovery Material previously produced by the producing person without limitation should be designated Confidential, then the producing person may so designate by so apprising all prior recipients of the Discovery Material in writing, and thereafter such designated portion(s) of the Discovery Material will be deemed to be, and treated as, Confidential under the terms of this Protective Order.

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 person has designated Discovery Material Confidential, other persons subject to this Protective Order may only disclose such Discovery Material or information contained therein to:

(a) the Parties to this action, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers;

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

Everett v. New York City Department of Education, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Everett v. New York City Department of Education (Everett v. New York City Department of Education) — 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)