Baptiste v. The City University of New York et al
STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER:...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material. This stipulation binds the parties to treat as confidential the documents so classified. This Court, however, has not rev iewed the documents referenced herein; therefore, by so ordering this stipulation, the Court makes no finding as to whether the documents are confidential. That finding will be made, if ever, upon a document-by-document review pursuant to the procedu res set forth in the Court's Individual Rules and Practices and subject to the presumption in favor of public access to "judicial documents." See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). To tha t end, the Court does not "so order" any provision to the extent that it purports to authorize the parties to file documents under seal without a prior court order. See New York ex rel. Khurana v. Spherion Corp., No. 15-CV-6605 (JMF), 2019 WL 3294170 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2019). SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/13/2023) (ama)
Revised: March 8, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
MICHELE A. BAPTISTE
-againstTHE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK, and
VINCENT BOUDREAU, in his individual and
: No. 22-cv-2785 (OTW)
: STIPULATION AND__________
WHEREAS, the Parties having agreed to the following terms of confidentiality, and the
Court having found that good cause exists for the issuance of an appropriately tailored
confidentiality order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is hereby
ORDERED that the following restrictions and procedures shall apply to the information and
documents exchanged by the parties in connection with the pre-trial phase of this action:
Counsel for any party may designate any document or information, in whole or
in part, as confidential if counsel determines, in good faith, that such designation
is necessary to protect the interests of the client in information that is
proprietary, a trade secret or otherwise sensitive non-public information.
Information and documents designated by a party as confidential will be
The Confidential Information disclosed will be held and used by the person
receiving such information solely for use in connection with the action.
In the event a party challenges another party's designation of confidentiality,
counsel shall make a good faith effort to resolve the dispute, and in the absence
of a resolution, the challenging party may seek resolution by the Court. Nothing
in this Protective Order constitutes an admission by any party that Confidential
Information disclosed in this case is relevant or admissible. Each party reserves
the right to object to the use or admissibility of the Confidential Information.
The parties should meet and confer if any production requires a designation of
“For Attorneys’ or Experts’ Eyes Only.” All other documents designated as
“CONFIDENTIAL” shall not be disclosed to any person, except:
a. The requesting party and counsel, including in-house counsel;
b. Employees of such counsel assigned to and necessary to assist in the
c. Consultants or experts assisting in the prosecution or defense of the
matter, to the extent deemed necessary by counsel; and
d. The Court (including the mediator, or other person having access to
any Confidential Information by virtue of his or her position with the
Before disclosing or displaying the Confidential Information to any person,
a. Inform the person of the confidential nature of the information or
b. Inform the person that this Court has enjoined the use of the
information or documents by him/her for any purpose other than this
litigation and has enjoined the disclosure of the information or
documents to any other person; and
c. Require each such person to sign an agreement to be bound by this
Order in the form attached hereto.
The disclosure of a document or information without designating it as
“confidential” shall not constitute a waiver of the right to designate such
document or information as Confidential Information. If so designated, the
document or information shall thenceforth be treated as Confidential Information
subject to all the terms of this Stipulation and Order.
Any Personally Identifying Information (“PII”) (e.g., social security numbers,
financial account numbers, passwords, and information that may be used for
identity theft) exchanged in discovery shall be maintained by the receiving party
in a manner that is secure and confidential.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 502, inadvertent disclosure of
privileged communications shall not constitute a waiver of the privilege in this
matter provided the parties follow the steps set forth in Rule 502.
Notwithstanding the designation of information as “confidential” in discovery,
there is no presumption that such information shall be filed with the Court under
seal. The parties shall follow the Court’s procedures with respect to filing under
At the conclusion of litigation, Confidential Information and any copies thereof
shall be promptly (and in no event later than 30 days after entry of final judgment
no longer subject to further appeal) returned to the producing party or certified
as destroyed, except that the parties' counsel shall be permitted to retain their
working files on the condition that those files will remain protected.
SO STIPULATED AND AGREED.
State of New York
Attorney for Defendants
Joseph & Norinsberg LLC
Attorneys for Plaintiff
/s/ Michael Minkoff
110 East 59th Street, Suite 3200
New York, NY 10022
/s/ Shaina L. Schwartz
28 Liberty Street
New York, NY 10005
Tel. (212) 416-8560
Tel. (212) 227-5700
Dated: November 3, 2023
Dated: November 3, 2023
New York, New York
November 13, 2023
This stipulation binds the parties to treat as confidential the
documents so classified. This Court, however, has not reviewed
the documents referenced herein; therefore, by so ordering this
stipulation, the Court makes no finding as to whether the
documents are confidential. That finding will be made, if ever,
upon a document-by-document review pursuant to the procedures
set forth in the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices and subject
to the presumption in favor of public access to “judicial
documents.” See generally Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of
Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006). To that end, the
Court does not “so order” any provision to the extent that it
purports to authorize the parties to file documents under seal
without a prior court order. See New York ex rel. Khurana v.
Spherion Corp., No. 15-CV-6605 (JMF), 2019 WL 3294170
(S.D.N.Y. July 19, 2019).
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?