How Does an “Attorney’s Eyes Only” Order Apply to an Unrepresented Party?

Plaintiff, Jane Doe, filed suit against eleven named defendants, 15 John and Jane Does, and others. The court entered a confidentiality and protective order that included an “attorney’s eyes only” (“AEO”) provision.  It had been submitted by plaintiff and the  “Office of the Attorney General Defendants.”  Defendant Michael Adbidemi Adeleke was, however, unrepresented and did not agree to it.

“The Court writes specifically here to address the portions of the Proposed Order that pertain to ‘Attorney’s Eyes Only Material,’ and how such material will be provided to Defendant Adeleke.”  Jane Doe v. Adeleke, et al., 2026 WL 2283015 (S.D.N.Y.  Aug. 7, 2026).

The proposed AEO materials included “all documents containing Plaintiff’s personal identifying information, all records concerning Plaintiff’s medical and mental health care history, all documents within the confidential files of DOCCS OSI, and any documents that contain personal identifying information of non-party victims.”

The proposed order stated that Defendant Adeleke would receive only a redacted copy of AEO materials, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or ordered by the court.

The court stated two principles:

• “In fashioning appropriate procedures for the exchange of discovery in this case, this Court is mindful of the fact that courts have held that a pro se party, as a party to an action, must have access to the materials that an attorney would if he were represented by counsel.” Id. at *2 (cleaned up).
• “That said, courts have approved various procedures for limiting access to materials by pro se parties during the course of litigation in light of the particular facts and circumstances of the cases.” Id.

The court wrote that there are “many ways” in which a document can be redacted.  Some permit the reader to understand the contents of the remainder of the document. Others are extensive. Here, it was not clear what was being proposed. The court explained the problem:

At this early stage of discovery, it is not clear what the scope of redactions will be in the documents that are marked as “Attorney’s Eyes Only Material” and produced to Defendant Adeleke in redacted form, or how easy or difficult it will be for Defendant Adeleke to determine what information has been redacted from these documents. Paragraph 5 of the Proposed Order provides a procedure by which parties are able to object to the designation of any document as “Attorney’s Eyes Only Material,” but this procedure is only meaningful if the receiving party understands what is being withheld.

The court solved the problem by mandating a redaction log.

Here, for Defendant Adeleke to understand what is being withheld in the “Attorney’s Eyes Only Material” documents or other things that are produced to him, and to permit him to make informed determinations regarding whether he needs to invoke the dispute procedures under Paragraph 5 of the Proposed Order, it is hereby ordered that any party that produces documents or other things designated as “Attorney’s Eyes Only Material” to Defendant Adeleke, and redacts the documents or other things in accordance with Paragraph 12(c) of the Proposed Order, must provide a detailed log with an appropriate description of the withheld information. If Defendant Adeleke objects to the designation of any documents or other things as “Attorney’s Eyes Only Material,” he must proceed according to the procedure set forth in Paragraph 5 so that the parties can meet and confer and determine whether any compromise resolution is possible.

This blog was initially posted on  Electronic Discovery Reference Model.