Flowers v. Berry

Filing 41

CONFIDENTIAL AND PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 1/7/2021. (jak)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
CENTRAL DIVISION
DA'VETTA FLOWERS
v.

PLAINTIFF
CASE NO. 4:18-CV-577-DPM

KENDALL W. PENN, Major General,
Adjutant General for the State of
Arkansas

DEFENDANT

CONFIDENTIALITY AND PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the Court is the motion for protective order filed by Defendant Major
General Kendall W. Penn. The Plaintiff does not oppose the motion.
1.

The parties are engaged in discovery production and Defendant has

raised confidentiality defenses as to Plaintiffs discovery requests pertaining to
personnel files, investigative reports, and other identifying documents that may
contain protected confidential information, be protected by the Privacy Act of 1974,
or both.
2.

That the Court hereby orders that any materials provided by the

Defendant deemed "confidential" or "protected" by the Defendant, shall be protected
from any further disclosure, dissemination, or review, except as necessary for expert
consultation. Any retained expert is also prohibited from any disclosure,
dissemination or publication, other than to counsel of record, unless allowed by the
Court upon Motion by a party. Counsel must also give prior notice to all counsel of
record before disclosing any confidential or protected material to any retained expert.
3.

If the parties dispute whether any materials should be designated

"confidential" or "protected," counsel should confer in good faith in person before

bringing any such dispute to the Court. If the parties reach an impasse on the
designation of a material, they should file a report explaining the disagreement. This
report should be prepared and filed consistent with the Court's policy on "Discovery
Disputes" detailed in the Third Amended Final Scheduling Order (Doc. 38) filed in
this case.
4.

Information designated as "confidential" or "protected" must not be filed

on the public docket. If practicable, it should be redacted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2. If an
entire page contains confidential or protected information, substituting a page
marked "redacted" is an acceptable redaction method. If redaction is impracticable, a
party must move for permission to file any confidential or protected information and
any related motion, brief, or paper, containing that material under seal. The moving
party must justify sealing with specifics and solid reasons, including an explanation
about why redaction cannot be done.
5.

This Order shall remain in effect for one year after this case ends,

including any appeal. Thereafter, the obligations imposed shall continue, but shall be
solely a matter of contract between the parties.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

THE HONORABL~ D.P. ~SHALL, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT