Ramirez v. City of Worcester et al

Filing 24

District Judge Timothy S Hillman: ORDER entered granting 22 Motion for Protective Order. (Castles, Martin)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
_______________________________________
)
)
RICARDO RAMIREZ,
)
CIVIL ACTION
)
Plaintiff,
)
NO. 4:14-CV-40054-TSH
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF WORCESTER, MICHAEL V.
O’BRIEN, LARRY T. WILLIAMS, DANA )
)
RANDALL, AND GARY J. GEMME,
)
)
Defendants.
______________________________________ )
ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER (Docket No. 22)
December 9, 2015
HILLMAN, D.J.
Defendants have moved for a protective order pursuant to Rule 26(c)(1) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure in this police-misconduct case asserted against the City of Worcester and
various officers. Defendants contend that Plaintiff has requested certain categories of information
that are confidential and should not be subject to public filing or dissemination.
Defendants seek to designate the following categories of information as confidential:
(1) Criminal Offender Record Information; (2) Worcester Police Department personnel files;
(3) investigation reports generated by the Bureau of Professional Standards, formerly known as
the Internal Affairs Division; (4) documents pertaining to the medical and/or psychological
treatment of any City of Worcester employee; (5) records related to personal or financial history
of any City of Worcester employee; (6) records related to employment and/or disciplinary action
for any City of Worcester employee; (7) answers to interrogatories conveying personnel, Bureau
of Professional Standards investigation information and/or disciplinary action related to any City
1

of Worcester employee; and (8) portions of deposition testimony concerning the above-listed
confidential information.

Defendants do not object to disclosing relevant but confidential

information to Plaintiff during discovery but instead seek to limit Plaintiff’s ability to share this
information or publish it to the court’s public docket.
Plaintiff partially opposes the motion and argues that Defendant has failed to observe the
terms of Local Rule 37.1, which requires parties to engage in substantive consultation before
seeking a protective order. Plaintiff does not object to Defendants’ request for confidentiality of
the following categories of documents: (1) documents pertaining to medical and/or psychological
treatment of City of Worcester employees; (2) records related to personal or financial history of
City of Worcester employees; and (3) notices to any City of Worcester employees of discipline or
non-discipline. Plaintiff objects to the wholesale confidentiality of (1) reports of investigations by
the Bureau of Professional Standards; and (2) records of citizen complaints alleging excessive
force and reports of inquiry or investigation into these complaints.
Defendants’ motion (Docket No. 22) is hereby granted, provided that, as discovery
progresses, Plaintiff may, by motion, present argument as to why specific documents or portions
of documents covered by the Protective Order should not be kept confidential.

SO ORDERED.

/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE

2