Order | Filed: June 22, 2026
| Entered: June 22, 2026
Estate of Jaythan Kendrick v. New York City Housing Authority
Civil Rights: Other | New York Eastern
~Util - Set Deadlines
ORDER: The Court is in receipt of the relevant portions of the deposition transcript in dispute (see ECF 90 ), via chambers email, pursuant to the Court's 6/11/2026 order. Plaintiff seeks to mark as confidential certain portions of the transcript as containing information of Mr. Kendrick's physical and psychological state, asserting that these statements fall within sections 2(e) and 14 of the parties' stipulated confidentiality order, docketed at ECF 36 . See Joint Letter, ECF 90, at 5. Defendant opposes Plaintiff's request, asserting that the testimony is not covered by the confidentiality order as the testimony is not medical or mental health records. Id.
Upon review of the transcript, which indicates portions Plaintiff seeks to mark as confidential under the parties' confidentiality order, see ECF 36 , the Court finds that the testimony does not appear to fall squarely within the terms of the parties' Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order 36 . The confidentiality order establishes that "[m]edical and mental-health records of Jaythan Kendrick" may be deemed confidential. Confidentiality Order, ECF 36, at 2 (emphasis added). The deposition testimony Plaintiff seeks to mark as confidential is not a medical or mental health record; rather, the testimony concerns Mr. Hughes's perception of Mr. Kendrick's physical and psychological state, and his understanding of whether Mr. Kendrick had sought treatment. Accordingly, the Court finds that the portions of the transcript Plaintiff seeks to mark as confidential do not squarely fall within the "medical and mental-health records" category of the parties' agreed-upon confidentiality order 36 . Notwithstanding the foregoing observation, the Court does recognize that the information Plaintiff seeks to redact is highly sensitive and appears to relate to medical and mental health conditions, as acknowledged by Defendant in the parties' status report. See Joint Letter, ECF 90 , at 5 (observing that "Defendant is mindful of the sensitive nature of such information and understands that such information is very personal and private").
At this juncture, it is entirely unclear to the Court whether the preliminary designation of this material as confidential is, in some manner, impeding Defendant NYCHA's ability to defend this case and/or whether Plaintiff would assert other bases for marking the material as confidential if this matter were fully briefed. The parties are respectfully reminded that "[i]n determining whether a confidentiality order applies to material designated confidential, the order 'must be construed according to general principles of contract law.'" Trooper 1 v. New York State Police, No. 22-CV-893 (LDH) (TAM), 2024 WL 1349122, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 29, 2024) (quoting City of Hartford v. Chase, 942 F.2d 130, 134 (2d Cir. 1991)). "In such an interpretation, the plain meaning of the words in the order will control." Id. In addition, "the burden of establishing that there is good cause to protect the designated materials rests at all times with the party seeking protection." In re Zyprexa Inj., 474 F. Supp. 2d 385, 416 (E.D.N.Y. 2007). The Court directs the parties to meet and confer to determine whether they can reach an accommodation or agreement as to how to the contested portions of the deposition may be used in this litigation going forward. If the parties cannot resolve or narrow this dispute, the parties shall file a letter by 7/7/2026, indicating whether the parties object to the Court's deeming the parties' status report as the briefing on a motion for de-designation of these materials or whether the parties would like an opportunity to fully brief the issue, and if so, to propose an agreed-upon briefing schedule. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Taryn A. Merkl on 6/22/2026. (DT)