Watson v. NY Doe 1

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK -----------------------------------------------------------------X RALPH M. WATSON, Plaintiff, 19-CV-533 (DEH) (VF) -against- ORDER NY DOE 1 ET AL., Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------X VALERIE FIGUEREDO, United States Magistrate Judge At ECF Nos. 184, 186, and 187, anonymous non-party witness 1 (“Witness”) seeks an order to protect his or her identity and contact information from being disclosed to any person, including the public, other than those persons necessary to the litigation and only if those persons agree to be bound by such protective order. No party to the case has opposed the request for a protective order. The protective order sought is similar to the two protective orders already in place in this case. See ECF Nos. 93, 131. One of those protective orders (see ECF No. 93 at 1) applies to protect the identity and contact information of all defendants in the action except NY Doe 3. Here, the Witness, an innocent third party, was compelled to provide sworn testify in this action via a Rule 45 subpoena issued by NY Doe 2. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may issue a protective order “to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression or undue burden and expense.” See also Kinlaw v. Walsh, 2011 WL 4620966, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 4, 2011) (explaining that the court may issue a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c) for good cause). For the reasons stated by the Witness in their motion (see ECF No. 187 at 6-7), good cause exists for the issuance of a protective order. The Witness would thus receive the same protection already being provided to some of the parties in this case. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 184, 186, and 187. SO ORDERED. DATED: New York, New York (\ March 6, 2024 \\ □ \ \) ( |

VALERIE FIGUEREDO United States Magistrate Judge