Scott v. City of New York et al
Filing
23
PROTECTIVE ORDER: The attached proposed protected order submitted by stipulation 21 by the parties is approved, as modified. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Marilyn D. Go on 5/31/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order) (Go, Marilyn)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
MACEO SCOTT,
Plaintiff,
ORDER
- against CV 2012-5301 (CBA)(MDG)
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al.,
Defendants.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X
The
parties
submitted
a
proposed
protective
order
of
confidentiality to protect certain confidential information that
may be produced in discovery. See Stip. for Protective Order filed
May 13, 2012 (ct. doc. 21).
This Court finds, given the nature of
the claims asserted herein, that certain documents produced in
discovery may contain confidential private information for which
special protection from public disclosure and from use for any
purpose other than litigating this action would be warranted.
Accordingly, this Court orders as follows:
1.
The Protective Order agreed to by the parties, which is
annexed hereto as Exhibit 1, is approved and incorporated herein,
except as modified as follows.
2.
Absent approval of the Court, no party may designate as
Confidential
materials
that
are
not
entitled
to
confidential
treatment under applicable legal principles, such as personnel and
disciplinary
records;
private
personal,
medical
or
financial
information; information required by law to be maintained in
confidence by any person; and information protected from disclosure
by government regulations.
Thus records of investigations which
are obtained from public sources or do not otherwise fall within
the
preceding
categories
"Confidential Materials."
described
may
not
be
designated
as
In addition, this Order protects all
copies, abstracts, charts, summaries, and notes made from material
properly designated as Confidential.
Nothing in this Order shall
be construed as conferring blanket protection on all disclosures or
responses to discovery or as constituting a determination of the
relevance or admissibility of any discovery materials.
3.
The parties must use best efforts to minimize the number
and extent of documents filed under seal.
Prior to seeking leave
to file a document containing Confidential Materials under seal, a
party must determine whether the material that gives rise to a
"Confidential" designation is relevant and necessary to the filing
and whether redaction of the confidential information may eliminate
the need for sealing the document.
If the information that is
confidential is not relevant to the filing and there is no need to
seal the remainder of the document, the document should be filed
unsealed, with the confidential information redacted.
4. If the information that is confidential is relevant to the
filing, the document containing such information may be filed under
seal.
However, if the document containing Confidential Materials
is a document prepared or caused to be prepared by a party for this
litigation, such as an affidavit, memorandum of law or deposition
-2-
transcript, the parties must publicly file the document with the
Confidential Materials redacted.
It should be noted that if the
parties seek to seal documents relating to matters outside the
scope of discovery, such as dispositive motions or trial materials,
the Court may revisit this protective order in order to tailor more
narrowly
the
appropriate
scope
of
sealing
and
redacting
of
information in order to protect the right of the public to inspect
judicial documents under both the First Amendment and under common
law.
5.
The parties must comply with procedures of the Clerk's
Office and this Court's Chambers Rules as to documents to be filed
under seal.1
This process requires that a party seeking to seal a
document must first file a Motion for Leave to e-file a sealed
document, with the proposed sealed documents attached to the
motion.
The ECF system will notify the party when the motion is
granted and provide instructions for filing the sealed document,
using both the appropriate event for the motion and the sealed
document event.
If leave to file under seal is granted and if the
document contains relevant information that is not confidential,
the filing party will be required to file publicly a copy of the
sealed document with the confidential information redacted.
1
The Clerk's instructions for electronically filing sealed
documents are available on the Court's website at:
https://www.nyed.uscourts.gov/forms/steps-e-filing-sealed-documen
ts-civil-cases.
-3-
The parties should make best efforts to file sealed documents
electronically.
If a party has to file a hard copy, any such
submission must be accompanied by a cover sheet in accordance with
the form "Notice Regarding the filing of Exhibits in Paper Form,"
in the CM/ECF User's Guide.
electronically.
The Notice must also be filed
Any sealing envelope should clearly describe the
document to be sealed and identify the document number on the
docket sheet that corresponds to such sealed document.
Each
envelope submitted for sealing may contain only one document or
portions of one filing (such as multiple exhibits annexed to a
document filed).
6.
A party submitting a document under seal or filing a
document with redacted information must provide the District Judge
and/or Magistrate Judge to be handling the application or motion at
issue with a complete and un-redacted copy of the submission that
is marked to indicate that the document is filed under seal, if
applicable, and what portions of the submission are confidential.
The first page of the document must clearly indicate that the
document
or
portions
thereof
are
filed
under
seal
or
with
redactions and the assigned ECF document number.
SO ORDERED.
Dated:
Brooklyn, New York
May 31, 2013
/s/___________________________
MARILYN D. GO
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?