Royal v. Boykin et al

Filing 262

ORDER MODIFYING 150 Agreed Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy Percy on 6/25/18. (cs)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
ABERDEEN DIVISION
PAUL N. ROYAL as Administrator ad Litem for the
Estate of RICKY JAVENTIA BALL, Deceased
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 1:16-CV-176 – GHD-RP

CANYON BOYKIN, Individually and
in his Official Capacity as an Officer of the
Columbus Police Department;
TONY CARLETON, Individually and
in his Official Capacity as Chief of Police of
the Columbus Police Department;
CITY OF COLUMBUS, MISSISSIPPI

DEFENDANTS

ORDER
On June 22, 2018, Defendant City of Columbus filed a motion for entry of an addendum
to the Agreed Protective Order Regarding Confidential Material (Docket 150) entered on
November 3, 2017. Docket 259. A dispute arose during Yolanda Young’s deposition which
resulted in a teleconference with the undersigned Magistrate Judge, who resolved that Plaintiff
would be permitted to inquire as to Ms. Young’s personal health information that was provided
to the City, and that the previously-entered Agreed Protective Order would be extended to
protect the confidentiality of such information. The City and Plaintiff now disagree on the
language of a proposed addendum so extending the Agreed Protective Order.
The City and Plaintiff agree to extend the Agreed Protective Order to deposition
testimony, oral statements, and written forms, records, or documentation pertaining to protected
health information; however, the City wishes to extend those protections to all “current or former
officers and/or employees of the City of Columbus or Columbus Police Department” while
Plaintiff seeks to limit the protections to only Yolanda Young. Docket 259, 260.

1

Although the City seeks to address the protected health information of all current or
former city employees and police officers, the City has not called the Court’s attention to any
pending or contemplated discovery request or disclosure that would necessitate such a broad
extension of the protective order. It appears the discovery at issue pertains only to certain health
information of Yolanda Young. Therefore, the City’s motion is DENIED, and the Court extends
the Agreed Protective Order entered on November 3, 2017 as follows:
ADDENDUM TO AGREED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING
CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL [ECF DOC #150]
(10)

This Order shall also apply to any and all deposition testimony of Yolanda Young

elicited during her deposition pertaining or relating to her protected health information. This Order
shall also apply to any and all deposition testimony in this lawsuit pertaining or relating to Ms.
Young’s medical diagnoses and/or medical treatment.
(11)

This Order shall also apply to any and all oral statements and any and all written

forms, records, or documentation pertaining or relating to Family Medical Leave (FMLA)
Requests or Certifications by Yolanda Young.
This the 25th day of June, 2018.
/s/ Roy Percy
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2