UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
March 2, 2006
MARIO PACHECO, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS,
CITY OF NEW YORK, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIKTOR V. Pohorelsky United States Magistrate Judge
The parties have submitted a Stipulation and Protective Order for the court's endorsement. Because the language of the first numbered paragraph of the Stipulation provides broad discretion to counsel to designate materials to be confidential, and therefore subject to the order, without making the required showing of "good cause," see Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c), the court has declined to enter the order as written. Instead, the court has entered a modified version of the Sitpulation and Protective Order which permits additional materials to be designated as confidential, and therefore subject to the order, only by the court, upon an appropriate application by counsel. Any such application must identify the documents or other information that are subject to the order with sufficient specificity to permit the court to determine whether the items identified qualify for protection, and if the need for protection is not readily apparent from the description of the documents, a showing of good cause must accompany the application. (Thus, for example, the performance evaluations of the individual defendants qualify for confidentiality protection and no additional showing of good cause is required for entry of the protective order as to them.)
© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.