Curtis v. Stewart et al
AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER re: information contained in the personnel and disciplinary files produced by Defendants.Signed by Judge Brian S. Miller on 12/22/2009. (thd)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION DEMETRIUS CURTIS ADC #120225 v. CASE NO. 4-09-CV-00519 BSM/HLJ DEFENDANTS PLAINTIFF
CHIEF STEWART, ET. AL.
AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER Defendants, Officers Erick Temple and Christopher Johannes, move, with consent of plaintiff Demetrius Curtis, for a protective order in this case. For the reasons below, the protective order is granted. 1. Plaintiff has sought access to information from the personnel files and/or
employee records of Defendants. The information includes information which may be regarded as confidential and in some cases would not be available to Plaintiff even pursuant to the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act. These records contain confidential information such as social security numbers, driver's license numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers and mobile telephone numbers. 2. While the records described above may or may not be relevant to a decision in
this case, it is clear that the records should not be disclosed or used in any fashion outside the framework of this litigation. Therefore, the Court orders that the information contained in the personnel and disciplinary files produced by Defendants shall be used solely for the purpose of litigation of this action and that neither the documents themselves nor the
information contained therein shall be disclosed except as permitted herein. 3. Prior to producing any records requested by Plaintiff in discovery, Defendants
will redact the social security numbers, driver's license numbers, addresses and telephone numbers of the subjects of the files. Documents produced by the Defendants, and any information contained therein, may be disclosed only to Plaintiff, Plaintiff's attorney of record in this matter if he retains counsel, and any expert witnesses retained by Plaintiff in connection with this action. The documents shall not be disclosed to any other person, partnership, firm, corporation, or any other person or entity. Plaintiff is strictly forbidden from disseminating any documents covered by this Order to anyone and is likewise directed not to discuss any information contained in any such documents with anyone other than those persons authorized by this Order. A violation of this provision of the Agreed Protective Order could, upon motion by Defendants, subject Plaintiff to a finding of contempt of Court. 4. The information contained in the documents produced shall be used solely for
the purpose of litigation of this action and shall not be disclosed except as permitted herein, and shall not be used by or on behalf of the Plaintiff or any other person for any other purpose. 5. This Order does not address whether any documents produced by Defendants
are admissible into evidence at the trial of this case. 6. Termination of proceedings in this action shall not thereafter relieve any person
to whom confidential material was disclosed, including Plaintiff and counsel for Plaintiff, from the obligation of maintaining the confidentiality of all materials received pursuant to this Agreed Protective Order.
Within thirty (30) days of the final termination of this action, including all
appeals, Plaintiff shall return to Defendants' attorney all documents produced by Defendants in response to discovery requests, and any additional copies made by him. IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 22nd day of December, 2009.
APPROVED: /s/ Amy Beckman Fields Amy Beckman Fields Bar Number #89058 Attorney for Defendants Office of the City Attorney 500 West Markham, Suite 310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 371-4527 af firstname.lastname@example.org ______________________________ __ Demetrius Curtis Plaintiff 1101 South Woodrow Street Little Rock, AR 72204 ·3
________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?