KEATON v. HANNUM et al
Filing
143
ORDER granting Deft Christine Zook's 89 Motion for Protective Order (see Order) c/m. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark J. Dinsmore on 4/29/2013. (SWM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION
MARK KEATON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
DAVE HANNUM,
LESLIE SLONE,
CHRISTINE ZOOK,
REBA GARDNER,
JACKIE DAKICH,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 1:12-cv-00641-SEB-MJD
ORDER ON DEFENDANT ZOOK’S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER [DKT. 89]
Defendant Christine Zook filed a Motion for Protective Order [Dkt. 89] on February 11,
2013. Plaintiff Mark Keaton responded on February 25, 2013 [Dkt. 99]. Zook filed a reply on
March 1, 2013 [Dkt. 101]. The Motion was heard on March 5, 2013. Consistent with the
Court’s oral ruling during the hearing on March 5, 2013, the Court GRANTS the Motion for
Protective Order as follows.
Zook provided copies of screenshots of internet blog posts to the Indiana University
Police Department during the investigation of Zook’s allegations that Keaton was stalking and
intimidating her. The screenshots contain photographs of Zook that are explicit in nature. A
dispute exists as to whether Keaton created the blog posts. Redacted copies of the blog posts
were produced to Keaton on January 4, 2013; however, Zook requests that the Court protect
unredacted copies of the blog posts by limiting the parties’ ability to reproduce those documents.
According to Zook, Keaton claims to have additional photographs of Zook in a .jpg format that
he is willing to reproduce to defendants upon request. [Dkt. 89 at 3, n.1.] Zook seeks to prohibit
the reproduction (whether electronically or in hard copy format) of these photographs and
screenshots.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c) provides that:
The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including
one or more of the following:
(A) forbidding the disclosure or discovery;
(B) specifying terms, including time and place, for the disclosure or
discovery;
(C) prescribing a discovery method other than the one selected by the
party seeking discovery;
(D) forbidding inquiry into certain matters, or limiting the scope of
disclosure or discovery to certain matters;
(E) designating the persons who may be present while the discovery is
conducted;
(F) requiring that a deposition be sealed and opened only on court order;
(G) requiring that a trade secret or other confidential research,
development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a
specified way; and
(H) requiring that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or
information in sealed envelopes, to be opened as the court directs.
(Emphasis added).
“Generalized claims of embarrassment do not establish good cause.”
Hollinger Intern. Inc. v. Hollinger Inc., Case No. 04-c-698, 2005 WL 3177880, at *3 (N.D. Ill.
Jan. 19, 2005) (citing Cipollone v. Liggett Group, 785 F.2d 1108, 1121 (3rd Cir. 1986) (stating
“an applicant for a protective order whose chief concern is embarrassment must demonstrate that
the embarrassment will be particularly serious.”); Flaherty v. Seroussi, 209 F.R.D. 295, 299
(holding that the “mere fact that some level of discomfort, or even embarrassment, may result
from the dissemination” of a party’s deposition “is not in and of itself sufficient to establish good
2
cause to support the issuance of [a] protective order.”)). Embarrassment must be substantial to
rise to the level of good cause. Id. (citing Flaherty, 209 F.R.D. at 299).
Here, the photographs at issue are of an explicit nature. Although Keaton argues that
Zook’s embarrassment as a result of dissemination of the blog posts or photographs is
diminished because Zook shared the photographs with Keaton, this does not eliminate Zook’s
potential substantial embarrassment if the explicit photographs are disseminated beyond the
individuals to whom Zook provided them.
Keaton argues that he needs “unredacted copies of the screenshots” to test “the veracity
of defendants’ statements about them.” [Dkt. 99 at 4.] Keaton can review the unredacted
versions at counsel for Defendant Hannum’s office and unredacted copies can be made available
at the depositions. Keaton has not shown that it is necessary for him to possess his own
unredacted copies of the blog screenshots for him to test defendants’ veracity.
As a result, the Court finds good cause to enter a protective order limiting the copying
and dissemination of the explicit photographs and blog posts depicting Zook.
The Court
GRANTS Zook’s Motion for Protective Order and ORDERS that copies of the unredacted blog
posts that have been provided to the Indiana University Police Department as well as any other
explicit photographs of Zook shall not be duplicated in either electronic or hard copy form. The
Court ORDERS that copies of the unredacted blog posts shall be made available for Keaton’s
inspection at a mutually-convenient time and location. To the extent that Keaton possesses
additional explicit photographs that he believes should be produced, those photographs should be
made available for inspection by the other parties, and not duplicated.
The Court further
ORDERS that counsel for Zook shall ensure that a copy of the unredacted blog posts are present
at each deposition in this case. The Court expects that parties to use the explicit photographs and
3
blog posts with circumspection and to file any necessary motions to seal such documents if the
unredacted photographs and/or blog posts are required to be filed.
Date: 04/29/2013
Distribution:
Mark J. Dinsmore
United States Magistrate Judge
Southern District of Indiana
MARK KEATON
PO BOX 11208
Ft. Wayne, IN 46856
David L. Ferguson
FERGUSON & FERGUSON
dlf@ferglaw.com
Kate E. Shelby
INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL
kate.shelby@atg.in.gov
Don R. Hostetler
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
donald.hostetler@atg.in.gov
David B. Hughes
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
DISCIPLINARY COMMISSION
dbhughes11@att.net
James R. A. Dawson
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
jdawson@taftlaw.com
Daniel Mark Witte
TRAVELERS STAFF COUNSEL OFFICE
dwitte@travelers.com
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?