Lynn v. Maddox et al

Filing 88

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 74 Motion for Protective Order; finding as moot 79 Motion for Order; finding as moot 80 Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth G. Gale on 9/18/2013. Mailed to pro se party Patrick Lynn by regular mail. (df)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
PATRICK LYNN,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
LEONARD MADDOX,
)
)
Defendant.
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 12-3104-MLB-KGG

PROTECTIVE ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant’s Motion for a Protective
Order (Doc. 74) pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c). The parties appeared before the
Court telephonically on September 18, 2013, to discuss this and other related
matters currently pending, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff’s Motion for
Order (Doc. 79) and Motion to Compel (Doc. 80).
Plaintiff is an inmate whose claims arose while he was confined in a Kansas
Department of Corrections (“KDOC”) facility. According to the parties,
Plaintiff’s discovery requests have called into question information in the
possession, custody or control of the KDOC: specifically, information pertaining
to the security and operations of KDOC correctional facilities, inmate medical and
mental health records, facility personnel records, personal contact information of

KDOC current and former employees and other identifying information,
documents containing private information about other inmates, and information
that discloses confidential sources or intelligence gathering methods
(“Confidential Information”). Defendant argues that the potential disclosure of
such information necessitates a Protective Order to protect the discovery and
dissemination of confidential or proprietary information or information which
could improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party, witness, or person
providing discovery in this case, or generally impact the security or safety of the
facility, KDOC employees, and/or other inmates.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:
1.

This Protective Order shall apply to all Confidential Information

contained in documents, materials, and information disclosed in this case pursuant
to the disclosure or discovery duties created by the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
2.

“Confidential Information” means proprietary information or

information which could improperly annoy, embarrass, or oppress any party,
witness, or person providing discovery in this case, or generally impact the
security or safety of the facility, KDOC employees, and/or other inmates.

2

3.

Defendant shall mark documents containing Confidential Information

(as defined in ¶ 2 of this Protective Order) that are produced to Plaintiff as
“Confidential.” The use and disposition of such document shall then be governed
by this Order until and unless the designation is overruled by the Court.
4.

In an effort to facilitate discovery in this civil action, the Court will

restrict use of certain information, deemed “Confidential Information,” to
discovery proceedings before this Court, preparation for trial, and trial of this civil
action. All Confidential Information produced by a party during discovery in this
case shall be used solely for the purpose of this litigation and shall not be used in
or for the preparation of any other lawsuit or proceeding or for any other purpose
whatsoever.
5.

Information that pertains to the security operations of the KDOC,

discloses private identifying information of staff, or discloses confidential sources
or intelligence gathering methods shall be identified as confidential within the
parameters of this Order. In addition, such confidential information may be
redacted to protect the security of KDOC correctional facilities, the privacy of
other inmates and staff, and confidential sources or intelligence gathering
methodology. This includes information which Defendant contends would
compromise the security or safety of the facility, staff, or inmates.
3

6.

To the extent documents produced by Defendant contain redactions,

Defendant is ordered to compile and provide to Plaintiff a “redaction log,” similar
in form and function to a privilege log, explaining the nature of the information
redacted. Defendant will also provide a copy of the “redaction log” to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge as well as unredacted copies of documents
produced to allow the Court to determine, in camera, if the information has been
properly redacted. These will be scanned and provided electronically to Chambers
and not filed in the case.
7.

Plaintiff has served two sets of discovery requests on Defendant, for

which he is awaiting a response. As stated at the status conference, Defendant’s
filing of his Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 74) stayed Defendant’s obligation
to respond to the discovery pending a decision from the Court on that motion. As
such, Defendant shall provide written discovery responses and responsive
documents to Plaintiff within 14 (fourteen) days of this Order, including
documents marked “CONFIDENTIAL” and/or redacted pursuant to this Order.
8.

The Court will not require or encourage Plaintiff to file any additional

motions to compel or other motions relating to the document production at this
time. Rather, the Court will discuss the discovery responses with the parties at an
additional telephonic status conference set for October 29, 2013, at 10 a.m. If
4

Plaintiff believes that documents have been improperly withheld or information
has improperly been redacted, he shall raise any such concerns and arguments with
the Court at that time. Also at that status conference, the Court will address the
issue of the discovery deadline in this case and, if necessary, modify it at that time.
9.

Regardless of any “policies” in place, Plaintiff’s medical records are

directly relevant to his claims. Defendant shall produce to Plaintiff copies of his
medical records as requested. The Court notes that Plaintiff has affirmatively
stated that he has no concerns regarding the security of these medical records once
in his possession.
10.

Any Confidential Information provided to Plaintiff by Defendant

shall not be used other than for this lawsuit, and shall not be made public or
otherwise disseminated except as allowed by this Protective Order. Plaintiff is
prohibited from disclosing Confidential Information to any individual other than:
a.

those individuals affiliated with the Kansas
Attorney General’s Office who are working on this
case;

b.

any court reporter present in his or her official
capacity at any hearing, deposition or other
proceeding in this action;

c.

the Court, Court personnel or members of the jury;
and

5

d.
11.

other persons by written agreement of the parties.

Within 14 days of the completion of the case, Plaintiff will return all

documents (including any and all copies made of the documents) covered by this
Protective Order to the opposing party’s counsel or will certify to opposing
counsel that the documents have been destroyed.
12.

Nothing in this Protective Order shall operate to waive the right of

any party to this lawsuit to assert objections to the production or admissibility of
the Confidential Material.
13.

This Protective Order may only be modified by further order of the

14.

Nothing in this Protective Order shall preclude any party from

Court.

seeking any additional protection with respect to the confidentiality of documents
or information.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Protective
Order (Doc. 74) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as set forth above.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Order (Doc. 79)
and Motion to Compel (Doc. 80) are DENIED as moot as Defendant’s responses
to the discovery were stayed pending a determination of Defendant’s Motion for
Protective Order.
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated at Wichita, Kansas, on this 18th day of September, 2013.

S/ KENNETH G. GALE

Kenneth G. Gale
United States Magistrate Judge

7