Hill v. Kilbourne et al

Filing 32

RULING: Deft Tyrone Kilbourne's 23 Motion to Submit Documents under Seal for In Camera Inspection is denied. However, the exhibits shall remain under seal until the time for the deft to appeal this ruling to the district judge has expired. I f this ruling is not timely appealed to the district judge, the exhibits will be unsealed and the deft will be required to provide copies of them to the pltf. Alternatively, the deft may move to withdraw the exhibits. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/4/2012. (JDL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

MARCUS D. HILL (#310825)
VERSUS

CIVIL ACTION

TYRONE KILBOURNE, ET AL

NUMBER 11-778-FJP-SCR

RULING ON MOTION TO FILE DOCUMENTS UNDER SEAL
Before the court is defendant Tyrone Kilbourne’s Motion to
Submit Documents Under Seal for In Camera Inspection.

Record

document number 23.
Defendant seeks to file under seal three photographs which he
relied

upon

Judgment.1

to

support

his

Defendant’s

Motion

for

Summary

These photographs are referred to in the defendants’s

supporting memorandum as Exhibits 10, 11 and 12.

Exhibit 10 shows

the major’s office with the door open and the adjacent hallways;
Exhibit 11 shows the exit door leading to the yard; Exhibit 12
shows the area in the yard where the confrontation with the
plaintiff occurred.2

The apparent purpose of Exhibit 10 is to show

the view from the major’s office, i.e. what areas a person could
see from inside the office.3 The purpose of Exhibit 11 is unclear.4

1

Record document number 22.

2

Record document number 22-2, p. 3.

3

Id. at 15, 16.

4

Id.

Likewise, the purpose of Exhibit 12 is unclear.5
exhibits

materially

defendant’s

assist

arguments

or

the

court

deciding

the

in

None of these

understanding

defendant’s

the

motion,

especially Exhibits 11 and 12. There is no apparent reason for any
of them to be filed at all, much less under seal.
Insofar as the defendant is concerned about these photographs
being misused by the plaintiff or other inmates, his concern seems
overstated.

The areas depicted are visible to anyone in these

areas, including the plaintiff and other inmates.
Accordingly, the defendant’s Motion to Submit Documents Under
Seal for In Camera Inspection is denied.

However the exhibits

shall remain under seal until the time for the defendant to appeal
this ruling to the district judge has expired.

If this ruling is

not timely appealed to the district judge, the exhibits will be
unsealed and the defendant will be required to provide copies of
them to the plaintiff.

Alternatively, the defendant may move to

withdraw the exhibits.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 4, 2012.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

5

Id. at 15.
2