Ledford et al v. Idaho Department of Juvenile Corrections et al

Filing 79

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER, The motion to stay (docket no. 76 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The motion to modify the interim protective order (docket no. 29 ) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

RHONDA LEDFORD, an individual;
RAYMON GREGSTON, an individual; JO
MCKINNEY, an individual; SHANE
PENROD, an individual; KIM
MCCORMICK, an individual; BOB
ROBINSON, an individual; and GRACIE
REYNA, an individual; LISA
LITTLEFIELD, an individual; ADDISON
FORDHAM, an individual; TOM DE
KNIF, an individual, FRANK
FARNWORTH, an individual,

Case No. 1:12-cv-00326-BLW

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
IDAHO DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE
CORRECTIONS, an executive department
of the State of Idaho; IDJC DIRECTOR
SHARON HARRIGFELD, in her
individual and official capacities; IDJC
JUVENILE CORRECTIONS CENTERNAMPA SUPERINTENDENT BETTY
GRIMM, in her individual and official
capacities; and DOES 1-20,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
Before the Court are the State’s motion to stay and the plaintiffs’ motion to modify
the interim protective order. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant in part
both motions.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

BACKGROUND
This is a whistleblower action brought by seven employees of the Idaho
Department of Juvenile Corrections (“the Employees”). They allege that the department
retaliated against them for reporting wrongful conduct.
During discovery, the State produced tens of thousands of documents. The
Employees want to share this information with the public and press, while the State seeks
to keep it sealed. Up until this point, the State has produced the documents under an
agreement with the Employees that they would keep the documents confidential until the
Court could rule on the issue. The Court entered an interim protective order consistent
with this agreement. See Order (Dkt. No. 18).
On May 3, 2013, the Employees asked the Court to modify the stipulated
protective order so they could share discovery with the public. The State responded by
seeking to keep confidential five broadly defined categories of documents.
The Court largely rejected the State’s arguments, deciding to allow disclosure of
most of the material, and keeping confidential only a limited amount of material
concerning juvenile names and transport schedules. See Memorandum Decision (Dkt.
No. 26). Concerned, however, with the State’s vague arguments in its briefing, the Court
allowed the State an opportunity to file – within 28 days – a targeted motion specifically
identifying confidential materials. The State never filed that motion. The Court also
directed the State to meet and confer with opposing counsel within 14 days to discuss
more specific objections. The State did not follow that direction.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

The State’s inaction prompted the Employees to renew their motion to modify the
Interim Protective Order, a motion now before the Court for resolution in this decision.
Meanwhile, the State filed a motion for summary judgment that the Court granted in part,
leaving only the Employees’ First Amendment and state whistleblower claims for a jury
trial. On those remaining claims, the Court rejected the State’s claim of qualified
immunity.
The State appealed that rejection, and filed a motion to stay the remainder of the
case in this Court. In the briefing on that motion to stay, the parties essentially agreed
that the Court retained jurisdiction to resolve disputes over (1) the interim protective
order; (2) plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to written discovery; and (3)
plaintiffs’ petition to reinstate plaintiff Rhonda Ledford. Their agreement is in accord
with Ninth Circuit case law that allows the Court to retain jurisdiction over such issues
even during the pendency of an appeal. See Perry v. City and County of San Francisco,
2011 WL 2419868 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that although an appeal passes jurisdiction to
the Circuit Court, “the district court has not been divested of its jurisdiction over ancillary
matters, such as protective orders”).
Thus, the Court will grant in part the motion to stay, staying this case except for
the three issues listed above. One of those issues is the subject of the Employees’ motion
to modify the interim protective order, and the Court will proceed to resolve that motion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3

ANALYSIS
The Court has set forth in its prior decision the legal standard that continues to
guide this Court. See Memorandum Decision (Dkt. No. 26). The State’s failure to follow
the Court’s direction to file a motion within 28 days, and meet with opposing counsel
within 14 days, is troubling. The State’s inaction required the Employees to file a
renewed motion to modify the interim protective order. Only then did the State respond.
Typically, the conduct of State’s counsel would warrant the Court ignoring the State’s
response. This issue, however, may affect innocent parties and third-parties, and hence
requires that the Court consider all arguments of counsel, even those raised in an
untimely manner.
All agree that any identifying information about the juveniles must be redacted.
This includes the juvenile’s name, birth date, physical description, address and
information related to next of kin. Any juvenile shall be identified by his initials only.
This will resolve many of the issues raised by the State. While the State wants to
seal many complete documents, the State has not come forward with any reason why
confidentiality will not be fully protected by redacting the juveniles’ identifying
information listed above, except for a limited category of documents that the Employees
have agreed should be kept sealed.
For example, the Employees agree not to disclose any sealed juvenile records or
Custody Review Board records without first seeking leave of the Court. The Employees
also agree that with regard to records relating to transport and safety and security

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 4

regulations and procedures, they will only disclose records that are not currently
protected from disclosure to juveniles and/or to the public in the ordinary course of
business at IDJC. Finally, the Employees agree not to disclose records which contain
identifying information of witnesses or victims of an offense committed by a juvenile
who is detained at an IDJC facility, without first obtaining leave of the Court.
Independent of this agreement, the Court finds compelling reasons to keep these
limited categories of documents sealed. For example, if a confidential safety or transport
policy was revealed, juveniles or others could take advantage of that disclosure and
compromise the safety of the staff and the juveniles. The sealing of the identity of
victims and witnesses is justified because those persons have nothing to do with the
current litigation and would suffer damage to their reputation. The Custody Review
Board records contain information that could be used to identify individual juveniles and
their victims; such information is not helpful to the public’s understanding of the case and
would damage the reputations of those identified.
With these qualifications, the Court will vacate the interim protective order. The
State had the burden of defending that order and justifying the broad categories of
documents under seal. The State has not carried that burden, with the exception of the
qualifications noted above. The Court will therefore grant the Employees’ motion with
the qualifications set forth above.
ORDER
In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 5

NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to stay (docket
no. 76) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. It is denied as to the Court’s
continuing authority to resolve disputes over (1) the interim protective order; (2)
plaintiffs’ motion to compel further responses to written discovery; and (3) plaintiffs’
petition to reinstate plaintiff Rhonda Ledford. It is granted in all other respects.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the motion to modify the interim protective
order (docket no. 29) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Employees
may publically disclose the discovery they have received from the State with the
following qualifications:
1. For any material they disclose, Employees shall redact any identifying
information on any juvenile, including the juvenile’s name, birth date, physical
description, address and information related to next of kin. The juvenile shall
be identified by his initials only.
2. The Employees shall not disclose any sealed juvenile records or Custody
Review Board records without first seeking leave of the Court.
3. The Employees shall only disclose material relating to transport and safety and
security regulations and procedures if those records are not currently protected
from disclosure to juveniles and/or to the public in the ordinary course of
business at IDJC.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 6

4. The Employees shall not disclose records which contain identifying
information of witnesses or victims of an offense committed by a juvenile who
is detained at an IDJC facility, without first obtaining leave of the Court.

DATED: August 4, 2014

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 7