Linzy v. Lawman et al

Filing 25

ORDER staying the time to respond to the 16 MOTION for Summary Judgment . Plaintiff's time to respond is stayed until one week after the entry of an Order from the Court addressing whether Mr. Lawman is required to reveal the name of the confidential source. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 1/17/14. (kpr)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
LEON LINZY
v.

PLAINTIFF
Case No. 4:11-cv-00615 KGB

DAVID LAWMAN, et al.

DEFENDANTS
ORDER

Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to stay a ruling of the Court on defendants’ motion
for summary judgment and to order defendant, David Lawman, to reveal the name of the
confidential source (Dkt. No. 20). Defendants have responded in opposition to plaintiff’s motion
(Dkt. No. 23).
In order for the Court to grant plaintiff’s motion to disclose the identity of the
government’s confidential informant, plaintiff has the burden of proving that such disclosure
would be material to the determination of plaintiff’s case; “that is, there must be a reasonable
probability that the evidence would change the outcome.” Elnashar v. Speedway SuperAmerica,
LLC, 484 F.3d 1046, 1053 (8th Cir. 2007); see also Jones v. United States, 869 F. Supp. 747, 749
(D. Neb. 1994). It is possible that the identity and testimony of the confidential informant in this
case is material to prove plaintiff’s malice claim; defendants admit in their response that the
confidential informant’s testimony could be relevant in that it could “completely exonerate
Defendants” (Dkt. No. 23). However, the Court cannot say on the basis of the record presently
before it whether there is a “reasonable probability” that the confidential informant’s identity and
testimony “would change the outcome” of the case.
Noting the “government’s interest in protecting confidential informants’ identities,”
Elnashar, 484 F.3d at 1052, the Court will conduct an ex parte, in camera review of the

defendants’ relevant documents pertaining to the confidential informant and determine on the
basis of that review the materiality of the disclosure of the confidential informant’s identity.
Within ten days of the entry of this Order, defendants are directed to submit ex parte and under
seal to the Court only the relevant documents pertaining to the confidential informant to permit
the Court to conduct an in camera review.
Plaintiff’s time to respond to the pending summary judgment motion (Dkt. No. 16)
remains stayed until one week after the entry of an Order from the Court addressing whether Mr.
Lawman is required to reveal the name of the confidential source.
SO ORDERED this 17th day of January, 2014.

____________________________________
Kristine G. Baker
United States District Judge