Edwards v. Edwards et al
Filing
46
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 10/18/13. (sat, Chambers)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
:
TERESITA EDWARDS
:
v.
:
Civil Action No. DKC 12-3761
:
ALFRED EDWARDS, et al.
:
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Presently pending and ready for review in this case is a
motion for entry of a protective order filed by Plaintiff, (ECF
No. 36), to which Defendants opposed, (ECF No. 40) and Plaintiff
replied (ECF No. 41).
For the reasons that follow, the motion
for entry of a protective order will be granted.
Rule
26(c)(1)
of
the
Federal
Rules
of
Civil
Procedure
provides that a “court may, for good cause, issue an order to
protect
a
party
or
person
from
annoyance,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.”
embarrassment,
A party moving for a
protective order bears the burden of establishing good cause.
Webb v. Green Tree Servicing LLC, 283 F.R.D. 276, 278 (D.Md.
2012). In so doing, “a proponent may not rely upon stereotyped
and conclusory statements, but must present a particular and
specific demonstration of fact as to why a protective order
should issue.”
Baron Fin. Corp. v. Natanzon, 240 F.R.D. 200,
202 (D.Md. 2006).
“Courts have consistently granted protective
orders that prevent disclosure of many types of information.”
Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. Alan & Kristin Hudson Farm, 278
F.R.D.
136,
140
under
Rule
26(c),
discovery
and
(D.Md.
2011)
courts
prescribe
(quotations
have
“broad
alternative
omitted).
authority
discovery
Indeed,
to
limit
mechanisms.”
Minter v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 258 F.R.D. 118, 124 (D.Md.
2009).
Plaintiff’s
standard
form
proposed
with
one
protective
order
exception:
it
is
adds
similar
a
to
category
the
of
documents designated “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY,” in addition to the
usual
“CONFIDENTIAL.”
Documents
may
be
designated
“ATTORNEY
EYES ONLY” “upon making a good faith determination that the
documents contain information protected by disclosure by statute
or that should be protected from disclosure as trade secrets or
other
highly
sensitive
business
or
personal
information,
the
disclosure of which is likely to cause significant harm to an
individual or to the business or competitive position of the
designating party.”
(ECF No. 36-2, at 4).
Such documents may
not be disclosed to the parties themselves.
In the instant matter, Plaintiff’s arguments are sufficient
to meet the burden for entry of a protective order.
alleges
that
Defendants
trafficked
her
from
Plaintiff
her
native
Philippines to the United States, where they enslaved her as
their housekeeper for a decade.
(See generally ECF No. 13).
2
In
a criminal case arising out of the same set of allegations,
Defendants each pled guilty to Harboring an Alien in violation
of
8
U.S.C.
Edwards,
§
1324(a)(1)(A)(iii).
11-cr-316-DKC).
Both
(See
Defendants
United
States
admitted
that
v.
they
obtained a visa for Plaintiff under false pretenses and took
steps to fraudulently obtain permanent resident status for her,
including arranging a sham marriage to a United States citizen.
(ECF No. 41-1).
Defendants
relative
As part of the judgment, the court ordered that
“not
of
have
any
[Plaintiff],
contact
either
with
[Plaintiff]
directly
or
or
any
indirectly,”
nor
were Defendants to “use or direct any third party to contact
[Plaintiff] or her relatives in any country.”
Additionally, the
Defendants were ordered not to, either on their own or through
any
third
party,
“file
or
pursue
any
baseless
or
harassing
lawsuit or baseless or harassing legal claim against [Plaintiff]
or her family in any country or try to recoup any restitution
ordered by this court or by filing suit in any country.”
(11-
cr-316-DKC, ECF Nos. 89 and 91, at 4).
Plaintiff
requests
on
Plaintiff’s
Number
submits
that
Plaintiff
“personal
(I-94
that
contact
Number),
Defendants
call
for
have
documents
information,
Social
Security
served
Alien
number,
document
containing
File,
Philippine
passport number, tax returns, and banking information.”
No. 36, at 2).
Alien
(ECF
Plaintiff represents that they will produce
3
these documents, but seeks a protective order to “limit access
of some documents to Defendants’ counsel, experts, and Court
personnel, and to prevent Defendants from using any information
they obtain from review of other documents for purposes other
than
defending
(Id.).
against
According
to
the
allegations
Plaintiff,
good
in
this
cause
is
litigation.”
present
here
because Plaintiff is fearful that allowing Defendants access to
her personal information could facilitate retaliation against
Plaintiff by Defendants as evidenced by the crime for which
Defendants were convicted, the allegations of abuse spelled out
in the complaint, and the past actions of Defendants.
Plaintiff has sufficiently demonstrated the requisite “good
cause.”
just
Her fear of reprisal or harassment is not unfounded, as
prior
lawsuit
to
in
their
the
criminal
sentencing
Philippines
requesting
Defendants
that
filed
a
Plaintiff’s
Philippine passport be canceled and she be deported from the
United States.
(ECF No. 41, at 2).
Furthermore, Plaintiff’s
proposed universe of personal and confidential information is
modest
and
will
only
be
kept
from
Defendants.
Defendants’
counsel remains free to view these documents in full and utilize
them to mount their defense.
Defendants, in opposition, do not oppose the entry of a
protective order as contained in Appendix D of this court’s
Local Rules, but do object to Plaintiff’s proposed “ATTORNEY’S
4
EYES ONLY” designation for a number of reasons, each of which is
unavailing.
First, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has failed
to identify any “trade secret or other highly sensitive business
or personal information” deserving of an “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY”
designation.
sensitive
This
is
personal
not
so,
as
information,
Plaintiff
namely
her
has
identified
address,
Social
Security Number, and I-94 number which could be abused if given
to the wrong person.
demonstrated
risk
The circumstances of this case and the
of
retaliation
or
harassment
presented
by
Defendants makes Plaintiff’s information especially sensitive.
Next,
Defendants
currently
incarcerated
August 19, 2013).
of
minimize
retaliation
the
(as
risk
of
the
they
filing
pose
of
as
their
they
brief
are
on
To the extent that one poses less of a risk
when
one
is
incarcerated,
such
a
status
is
temporary, as Alfred Edwards, Jr. has been released from prison
while Gloria Edwards will soon be.
Third, Defendants contend
that a protective order is duplicative, as they are already
under court order not to contact Plaintiff or her relatives
either directly or indirectly.
To now provide them the means to
make such contacts is unnecessary, especially where, as here,
Defendants’ counsel remain free to use the sensitive information
to
help
aid
Defendants’
legitimate
interest
in
defending
themselves. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order
will be granted with the “ATTORNEYS EYES ONLY” designation.
5
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff’s proposed protective
order is unnecessarily complex and inappropriate for the issues
in
this
protective
lawsuit.
order
An
leads
independent
to
the
same
review
of
conclusion.
the
proposed
Therefore,
counsel will confer and submit a protective order modeled after
that found in Appendix D to the Local Rules.
A separate order
will follow.
/s/
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?