Hoffman v. Jindal et al

Filing 62

RULING denying 60 Motion for Protective Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(a). Defendants shall provide the Protocols to the plaintiffs within 14 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephen C. Riedlinger on 6/4/2013. (LLH)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JESSIE HOFFMAN
CIVIL ACTION
VERSUS
NUMBER 12-796-JJB-SCR
BURL CAIN, WARDEN, ET AL

RULING ON MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
Before the court is the defendants’ Motion for Protective
Order Pursuant to FRCP 26(a).

Record document number 60.

The

motion is opposed.1
Defendants sought a protective order regarding their lethal
injection protocols (“Protocols”).

Their proposed order would

redact certain allegedly confidential telephone numbers and a
significant amount of allegedly confidential data related to the
execution schedule and procedures.

The requested protective order

would also restrict the use of the Protocols to this litigation and
prohibit dissemination to anyone other than the plaintiffs, their
attorneys and experts who specifically need to see the Protocols.
The

basis

for

the
of

requested
which

redactions

the

defendants

is

“serious

described

security

concerns,”

some

as

“self-

evident.”

Defendants argued that because execution by lethal

injection is a controversial topic, dissemination of the Protocols
could “plac[e] the entire process at risk of manipulation.”

1

Record document number 61.

As noted by the plaintiffs in their opposition memorandum, the
defendants completely failed to comply with the requirement of Rule
26(c)(1) that the mover confer, or at least attempt to confer, in
good faith in an effort to resolve the dispute without court
action.

The motion was filed without the required certification,

and the plaintiffs state that in fact no effort was made at all.
Had the defendants complied with Rule 26(c)(1), this motion may not
have been necessary or the scope of the parties’ dispute would have
been narrowed.

Defendants’ failure to comply with Rule 26(c)(1)

alone is sufficient to deny their motion.
Rule 26(c)(1) also requires a showing of good cause to grant
a protective order.

Essentially for the reasons argued by the

plaintiffs in their opposition memorandum, the defendants have not
shown good cause for the court to issue the protective order they
sought.

Defendants’ motion is not supported by any affidavit or

other evidence providing even one example of improper interference
with an execution caused by or related to the dissemination of the
current or any previous Louisiana execution protocol, or which
shows that the defendants’ security concerns and the asserted risk
of manipulation are more than mere speculation or conjecture.
Accordingly, the defendants’ Motion for Protective Order
Pursuant to FRCP 26(a) is denied.

Defendants shall provide the

Protocols to the plaintiffs within 14 days.
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, June 4, 2013.

STEPHEN C. RIEDLINGER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE