Burgess v. Baltimore Police Department et al

Filing 89

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting 87 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge Richard D. Bennett on 7/26/2016. (jnls, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SABEIN BURGESS

*

Plaintiff,

*

v.

*

BALTIMORE CITY POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.

Civil No. RDB-15-0834

*
*

Defendants
*
*

*

*

*

*

*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM ORDER

*

*

*

*

Presently pending before this Court is the Motion for Protective Order (ECF#87) filed by
the Baltimore City Department of Social Services (“the Department”) in response to a subpoena
served upon it by the Defendants Ritz, Goldstein, Weese, Purtell, Lehmann, Patton, Neverdon and
Van Gelder. The subpoena requests documents relating to the four children of the murder victim
Michelle Dyson, specifically LaShawnda Roberts, Tawanda Dyson, Brian Rayney and Shabria
Williams. The Department has moved for a Protective Order to authorize the production of these
documents, pursuant to Md. Ann. Code, Human Services §1-201(a)(1).
Under Maryland law a court may order disclosure of these confidential records if there is a
“reasonable possibility that review of the records would result in discovery of relevant evidence.”
Baltimore City Dept. of Social Services v. Stein, 328 Md 1 (1992). These documents relate to
information provided by the children on the night and the morning following murder of their
mother on or about October 5, 1994. These documents are relevant to the issues in this case and
may result in the discovery of usable evidence.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 26th day of July 2016 that the Motion for
Protective Order (ECF#87) is GRANTED as this Court finds that the Baltimore City Department
of Social Services records sought by the subject subpoena are relevant to this proceeding;
AND IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that these records are deemed
“confidential” within the scope of the Confidentiality Order already in place in this case and shall
therefore be reviewed and shared only by the parties and their attorneys for purposes of this
litigation;
AND IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that the names of the reporters of these
documents be redacted, that the disclosed records be SEALED, and be produced on a rolling basis
over a 90 day period beginning on August 5, 2016.

Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge