Herman v. City of New York

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 11, 2024·No. 1:21-cv-06295·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK --------------------------------------------------------------------- x NATHANIAL HERMAN, Plaintiff, 21-CV-6295 -against - PROPOSED CONFIDENTIALITY AND CITY OF NEW YORK, AND NEW YORK CITY PROTECTIVE ORDER POLICE DEPARTMENT LIEUTENANT ALI MIRANDA, Defendants. --------------------------------------------------------------------- x Robyn F. Tarnofsky, Magistrate Judge: WHEREAS, Defendants, City of New York and New York City Police Department Lieutenant Ali Miranda, 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, 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, this Protective Order does not create entitlement to file confidential information under seal; and WHEREAS, 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 (“Confidential Discovery Material”) shall not disclose such Confidential Discovery Material to anyone else except as expressly permitted hereunder. 2. The person or entity producing any Discovery Material may designate as “Confidential” only those documents or material or portions of such documents or material whose public disclosure is either restricted by law or, in the good-faith judgment of the person or entity disclosing the Discovery Material, would be detrimental to, or interfere with, the person’s or entity’s protected interests or the interests of a third party to whom a duty of confidentiality is owed. These protected interests shall include, but not be limited to, any proprietary, governmental, or privacy interest of the producing person or entity and their employees, customers, clients, vendors, agents, or stakeholders; the public at large; as well as any other category of information 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 entity or that person or entity’s counsel may designate such portion(s) of the Discovery Material 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 it must notify the producing party of its intent to do so. Thereafter, within 10 business days, the producing person or entity 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, the producing person entity or that person or entity’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 court 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 court 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 or entity realizes that some portion(s) of the Discovery Material that was previously produced by the producing person should be designated Confidential, then the producing person or entity must inform, in writing, all prior recipients of the Discovery Material of the documents or material that are to be treated as Confidential, 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 or entity has designated Discovery Material Confidential, other persons subject to this Protective Order may only disclose such Confidential Discovery Material or information contained therein to: a. the Parties to this action, their insurers, and counsel to their insurers; b. counsel retained specifically for this action, including any paralegal, clerical and other assistant(s) employed by such counsel and assigned to this matter; c. outside vendors or service providers (such as copy-service providers and document- management consultants, graphic production services or other litigation support services) hired by counsel and assigned to this matter, including computer service personnel performing duties relating to a computerized litigation system; d. any mediator or arbitrator engaged by the Parties in this matter or appointed by the Court, provided such person has first executed a Non-Disclosure Agreement in the form attached hereto; e. as to any document, its author, addressee, and any other person indicated on the face of the document as having received a copy; f. any witness who, in the good-faith belief of counsel for a Party, may be called to testify at trial or deposition in this action, provided such person has first executed a Non- Disclosure Agreement in the form attached hereto; g.

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

Herman v. City of New York, (S.D.N.Y. 2024).

Herman v. City of New York (Herman v. City of New York) — 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)