Hancock v. Crittenden County, Arkansas et al
Filing
17
PROTECTIVE ORDER granting 14 Joint MOTION for Protective Order with changes as directed by the court. Signed by Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 08/03/2012. (jak)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
JONESBORO DIVISION
JULETHA HANCOCK
v.
PLAINTIFF
No. 3:10-cv-328-DPM
CRITTENDEN COUNTY,
ARKANSAS, A Public Body Politic;
RICHARD ,DICK" BUSBY, In His
Official Capacity As Sheriff of Crittenden
County, Arkansas; and ZANE BOYD, In His
Individual and Official Capacity
as Jail Administrator
DEFENDANTS
PROTECTIVE ORDER
The parties have moved the Court to enter a protective order; and they
have proposed a draft. Document No.14. The motion is granted. The Court
adopts the proposal with minor changes. The parties should note and fulfill
their redaction-first obligation in the revised paragraph 5.
1. Confidential Information, as later defined, and obtained by either
party in this action, shall be used only for this litigation and for no other
purpose. It shall not be given, shown, made available or communicated in
any way to anyone except Qualified Persons, as defined in this Order.
2. Confidential Information shall include, without limitation: personnel
files, salary/ pay histories, and proprietary information. It shall also include
other information requested at any time by Plaintiff from a Defendant that
relates to the operation and organization of a Defendant. Defendant will
designate this information" Confidential" with the method of designation set
forth in the letter of transmittal to the Plaintiff. If Plaintiff disputes that the
designated information is confidential, Defendant shall move under Federal
Rule 26(c), demonstrating good cause as to why the information should be
designated as confidential. Miles v. Boeing Co., 154 F.R.D. 112, 114 (E.D.Pa.
1994).
3. Except with the prior written consent of the Defendant, or pursuant
to Court Order on motion with notice to the Defendant, no Confidential
Information may be disclosed to any person other than "Qualified Persons."
Qualified Persons shall be defined to include the Plaintiff, any future counsel
of record for the Plaintiff in this action, secretaries, paraprofessional
assistants, experts, and other employees of Plaintiff's counsel who would be
actively engaged in assisting counsel in connection with this action.
-2-
4. This Order shall continue to be binding through and after the
conclusion of this litigation. This Order will expire one year after judgment
is entered if no appeal is taken and one year after the Court of Appeals'
mandate issues if a party appeals. At the conclusion of this action, including
all appeals:
a)
Upon request by Defendant, Plaintiff (or Plaintiff's counsel)
shall take all reasonable steps necessary to reclaim all
Confidential Information,
including correspondence,
memoranda, notes or any other documents embodying such
information, in whole or in part.
b)
Counsel and all Qualified Persons are enjoined from
disclosing in any manner any Confidential Information
obtained during the course of this proceeding.
5. The Court prefers public filing. Any Confidential Information that
must be filed with the Court and with the Clerk of this Court must be
redacted, with an unredacted copy filed under seal.
If redaction is
impracticable, the party who wishes to file the Confidential Information must
seek leave of the Court to file it under seal. Only the Court, Court personnel,
-3-
and counsel for the parties shall have access to the sealed record in this
proceeding until further Order of this Court.
6. Plaintiff's current counsel shall explain to Plaintiff the terms of this
Protective Order, including the requirements and restrictions she must
observe.
7. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to affect any person's rights
under any other law to obtain information or documents from a public
agency.
So Ordered.
nJ>:Malilailjr.1'
United States District Judge
3 1/v 9/iffI :Zo I pt
f
-4-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?