September 29, 2026 minute entry

Docket text

MINUTE entry before the Honorable Sunil R. Harjani: Plaintiff's objections [200] to the magistrate judge's August 26, 2026 order is denied. Plaintiff has failed to show that the magistrate judge's decision is contrary to law. At the outset, Plaintiff won his motion. The documents were de-designated as confidential. The documents are no longer subject to the broad protections of the confidentiality order [70]. But the magistrate judge correctly recognized that there is a difference between materials obtained during discovery and those that are presented at a public trial. The magistrate judge was well within the bounds of his significant discretion to manage discovery when he ensured that discovery materials are used in connection with this litigation and are not publicly disseminated for other unrelated purposes, such as posting on websites or on social media, or to influence public opinion. The magistrate judge gave sufficient reasons for this under FRCP 26(c) to apply a narrow degree of protection over these materials that involve City investigative and disciplinary proceedings. See Doc [197] at 9. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertions, the restriction does not preclude referencing the materials in the pretrial order or any filings related to trial preparation or the upcoming trial. To the extent that the materials become admitted exhibits at trial, they will be public materials and can be fully disseminated. Plaintiff has failed to show that this decision is contrary to law. Emailed notice (yt)