Wilson v. Cain et al

Filing 59

RULING denying 58 Sealed Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal. If, within 15 days, the defts do not withdraw the Report as support of their summary judgment motion, the clerk of court will be directed to unseal the Report and the defts will be required to serve the pltf with a copy of it. Alternatively, the defts may re-file their motion, as stated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 2/5/2013. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MONDRELL WILSON (#378506)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

N. BURL CAIN, ET AL

NUMBER 11-289-BAJ-SCR

RULING ON MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Before the court is the Motion for Leave to File Documents
Under Seal filed by defendants Warden N. Burl Cain, Asst. Warden
Leslie Dupont and Capt. Luke Rheams.
Defendants
Investigative

seek

Report

to
(the

file

Record document number 58.

under

“Report”)

seal

the

issued

by

Confidential
the

prison’s

Investigative Services Department relating to the June 23, 2010
incident which forms the basis of the plaintiff’s claims.
defendants

rely

heavily

on

the

Report

to

support

The
their

contemporaneously-filed Motion for Summary Judgment, in which they
refer to the report as Exhibit E.1

In the Memorandum in Support of

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment the defendants cite their
supporting evidence in the footnotes.

The memorandum contains 44

footnotes, 24 of which cite the Report exclusively or along with
other

evidence.

The

portions

of

the

Report

cited

include

statements from both corrections officers and inmates (including

1

Ledet

Record document number 57.

plaintiff Wilson and defendant Capt. Rheams), and none of these
statements apparently were made under oath.
Defendants’

justification for seeking to file the Report

under seal - and to not provide a copy of it to the plaintiff - is
as follows:
The Louisiana Department of Public Safety and
Corrections has legitimate security concerns in releasing
investigative reports because such reports may contain
the
names
of
confidential
inmate
informants,
investigative methodologies, and investigative findings
that, if provided to the plaintiff, could be distributed
throughout the inmate population.2
Defendants did not assert that this Report identifies any
confidential informant or reveals any confidential investigative
methodology, and it is not apparent that it does either.

It does

include an investigative finding, but the substance of that finding
surely is already known to the plaintiff.

And the essence of it is

contained in the Memorandum in Support of Defendants’ Motion for
Summary Judgment. But even if that were not so, the defendants did
not explain how revealing that finding to the plaintiff, or the
inmate population as a whole, would be a threat to security or
otherwise compromise institutional security.
Defendants want to bar the plaintiff from having access to
extensive information they offered in support of their summary
judgment

motion.

But

they

have

not

shown

that

giving

the

information to the plaintiff would impair any legitimate security

2

Record document number 58, pp. 1-2 (emphasis added).
2

interest.
In the past, the court has often, and almost routinely,
granted such motions for leave to file under seal without careful
consideration

of

the

factual

and

legal

basis

for

sealing

a

particular document in a particular case. Henceforth, such motions
will not be granted on a routine basis.
Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to File Documents Under Seal
filed by defendants Warden N. Burl Cain, Asst. Warden Leslie Dupont
and

Capt.

Luke

Rheams

is

denied.

If,

within

15

days,

the

defendants do not withdraw the Report as support for their summary
judgment motion, the clerk of court will be directed to unseal the
Report and the defendants will be required to serve the plaintiff
with a copy of it. Alternatively, the defendants may re-file their
motion.

A re-filed motion must (1) identify the specific parts of

the Report which the defendants contend identifies confidential
informants, reveals investigative methodologies, or otherwise would
constitute a legitimate threat to security if revealed to the
plaintiff or became known to the inmate population, and (2) explain
how revealing the information to the plaintiff, or the information
becoming

known

to

the

inmate

legitimate threat to security.

population,

would

constitute

a

Furthermore, if a re-filed motion

is granted, that should not be taken as a finding that any part of
the Report will automatically be considered as summary judgment
evidence which the court may properly consider under Rule 56. That

3

is a separate issue.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, February 5, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4