ORDER

MARILYN D. GO, Magistrate Judge.

The parties have moved for a proposed protective order of confidentiality to protect certain information that may be produced in discovery and submitted a proposed stipulated protective order (the "Proposed Protective Order"). See ct. doc. 29. 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 Proposed Protective Order, to which the parties have stipulated and which is annexed hereto as Exhibit 1, is approved and incorporated herein, except as modified below.

2. Notwithstanding the agreement among the parties, no party may designate as "Confidential Material" documents that are not entitled to confidential treatment under applicable legal principles. "Confidential Material" may include personnel and disciplinary records; records of investigations regarding the conduct of members of the service of the New York Police Department; 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. 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 or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only 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. If the parties intend to file documents that include Confidential Materials or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only in connection with a motion, they must, if possible, propose a schedule for briefing of a motion which includes a short delay in filing submissions so the parties will have time to confer on minimizing the volume of documents that a party will seek to file under seal or to avoid having to file a motion to seal.

4. If the information that is confidential is relevant to the filing, the document containing such information may be filed under seal, with the following limitations:

5. The parties are advised that if they seek to seal documents 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.

6. 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.

7. 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. The Notice must also be filed electronically. 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).

8. 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.

ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER

WHEREAS, plaintiffs have demanded that defendant City of New York ("City") produce documents pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that defendant City deems to be of a privileged and confidential and sensitive nature and protected by the law enforcement privilege; and

WHEREAS, plaintiffs' document demands include investigative files of the New York City Police Department ("NYPD") and/or the Kings County District Attorney's Office ("KCDA") related to the March 9, 2013; fatal shooting of Kimani Gray as described in the complaint filed in this case (hereinafter, "the Incident"); and

WHEREAS, the investigative files of the NYPD and the KCDA contain personal identifying information regarding non-party individuals who made statements and/or were interviewed by the NYPD and/or the KCDA related to the Incident; and

WHEREAS, defendant City deems that the disclosure of such confidential and privileged personal identifying information of non-party witnesses who made statements and/or were interviewed by the NYPD and/or the KCDA — who are not already known to plaintiffs — would impair the law enforcement operations and objectives of the NYPD and the KCDA; and

WHEREAS, defendant City deems that the disclosure of such confidential and privileged personal identifying information of non-party witnesses who made statements and/or were interviewed by the NYPD and/or the KCDA — who are not already known to plaintiffs — would implicate privacy interests and safety concerns of those individuals; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the Court's September 16, 2014 order, by letter dated September 30, 2014, plaintiffs disclosed the names of thirteen potential witnesses known to plaintiffs: (1) "Tishawna King;" (2) "Jacquan Frasier;" (3) "Mr. Laroc (first name unknown);" (4) "Earl Morales;" (5) "Byron Morales;" (6) "Brandon Morales;" (7) "Willie Jones;" (8) "Glenroy Griffith;" (9) "Clyde Travis;" (10) "Dominic Heath;" (11) "Collette (phonetic);" (12) "Poppy (phonetic)," and (13) "Devon (phonetic)"; and

WHEREAS, the investigative files that plaintiffs have requested that defendant City produce include the confidential and privileged personal identifying information and statements of non-party witnesses who are not identified among the thirteen potential witnesses disclosed by plaintiffs in their September 30, 2014, letter; and

WHEREAS, defendant City objects to the disclosure of all documents deemed to be of a privileged and confidential and sensitive nature, including investigative file documents containing personal identifying information of non-party witnesses who made statements and/or were interviewed by the NYPD and/or the KCDA — who are not already known to plaintiffs — unless appropriate protection for the confidentiality of such information is assured; and

WHEREAS, defendants deem that the production of documents containing confidential and privileged personal identifying information of non-party witnesses who made statements and/or were interviewed by the NYPD and/or the KCDA — who are not already known to plaintiffs — should be for ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY and should be disseminated only to plaintiffs' attorneys, Michael O. Hueston, Esq., Victor A. Dunlop, Esq., and Kenneth J. Montgomery, Esq., and to members of the staff of the Law Offices of Michael O. Hueston, Esq., the Law Offices of Kenneth J. Montgomery, Esq., and Dunlop & Associates, P.C.; and

WHEREAS, good cause exists for the entry of an order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED, by and between the attorneys for plaintiffs and defendants, as follows:

1. With respect to documents or information designated "Confidential Materials," the parties stipulate and agree to the following:

2. With respect to documents or information designated "Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only," the parties stipulate and agree to the following:

3. Deposition testimony concerning any Confidential Materials and/or

Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only that reveals the contents of such materials shall be deemed confidential, and the transcript of such testimony, together with any exhibits referred to therein, shall be separately bound, with a cover page prominently marked "CONFIDENTIAL." Such portion of the transcript shall be deemed to be Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only within the meaning of this Stipulation and Protective Order.

4. Defendant City shall designate in good faith particular documents or information Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only by labeling such documents or information "Confidential Materials" and/or "Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only" and/or by designating such documents by Bates Number in writing to plaintiffs' counsel. Defendant City reserves the right to designate any documents or information Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to this agreement if necessary after production of such documents to plaintiff. If plaintiffs object to the designation of particular documents, as Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only, or believe that there is a basis to inform the plaintiffs of the identifies of witnesses in the Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only records, plaintiffs' attorneys shall state such objection or basis in writing to defendant City's attorneys, and the attorneys shall in good faith attempt to resolve such conflict. If the conflict cannot be resolved among the attorneys, the objecting party shall, within 45 days of the initial objection, request the Court remove the designation. Any such materials or information shall be treated as Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only until the parties resolve the conflict or the Court issues its ruling regarding the conflict.

5. The parties agree that, if any papers that incorporate Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only or reveal the contents thereof, are to be filed with the Court, the party seeking use the Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only shall make an application to the Court for permission to file those papers under seal and shall indicate whether any other party objects to that request. Upon receipt of permission, the parties shall follow the District Court protocol for filing under seal.

6. This Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order will survive the termination of the litigation and will continue to be binding upon all persons to whom Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only are produced or disclosed. All documents or information that have been deemed Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only pursuant to this Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order, including all copies and non-conforming copies thereof, shall remain confidential for all time. Within 30 days after the termination of this case, including any appeals, the Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only, including all copies, notes, and other materials containing or referring to information derived therefrom, shall be returned to defendants' attorneys or, upon their consent, destroyed, and all persons who possessed such materials shall verify their return or destruction by affidavit furnished to defendants' attorneys.

7. Nothing in this Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order shall be construed to limit defendant City's use of its own Confidential Materials and/or Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only in any manner.

8. The Court will retain jurisdiction over all persons subject to this Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order to the extent necessary to enforce any obligations arising hereunder or to impose sanctions for any contempt thereof. Additionally, the Court reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to modify this Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order at any time. 9, This stipulation shall be binding upon [he parties immediately upon signature, and shall be submitted to the Court for entry as an Order.

SO ORDERED:

EXHIBIT A

The undersigned hereby acknowledges that (s)he has read the Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order issued in the action entitled Carol Gray, et al. v. The City of New York, et al., 14 CV 2488 (MKB) (MDG), and understands the terms thereof. The undersigned agrees not to use the "Confidential Materials" and/or "Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only" defined therein for any purpose other than as permitted by the Stipulation of Confidentiality and Protective Order, will not further disclose the "Confidential Materials — Attorneys' Eyes Only," and will only disclose the "Confidential Materials" in testimony taken in this case.