Riggins v. City of Indianola, Mississippi et al

Filing 43

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 33 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jane M. Virden on 3/2/15. (ncb)

IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
GREENVILLE DIVISION
DENICE RIGGINS, Administratrix of the
Estate of DAMION S. RIGGINS, Deceased and
Estate of Damion S. Riggins and Wrongful Death Beneficiaries
of Damion S. Riggins, Deceased
V.

PLAINTIFF

CIVIL ACTION NO. 4:14cv110-DMB-JMV

CITY OF INDIANOLA, MISSISSIPPI, ET AL.

DEFENDANTS

ORDER ON MOTION TO SEAL
This matter is before the court on Defendants’ unopposed Motion to Seal [ 33] pursuant to
FRCP 5.2(d) and Local Rule 79: (1) the video from a jail surveillance camera recording the suicide
death of Ramon Riggins occurring in a holding cell at the City of Indianola Police Department; (2)
the investigative file of the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation arising therefrom; and (3) the case
file of the District Attorney regarding the State’s prosecution of the underlying burglary charge. As
explained hereafter, the motion will be granted in part and denied in part as moot.
To the extent defendants seek an order to seal the MBI investigative file and the case file of
the DA, the motion is denied as moot since motions to seal are not granted in the abstract. Instead,
a motion to seal must relate to proof which a party proposes to file in the case and which absent such
an order would then be available to the public for viewing on the court’s docket. In this case, there
is no pending proposal to file either the DA’s case file or the MBI investigation report. There is,
however, a pending motion for summary judgment [36] which incorporates, as a proposed exhibit
thereto, the video at issue here. Regarding the unopposed request to seal the video as an exhibit to
the aforesaid motion, the court finds the same well taken because the video reveals certain of the
surveillance capabilities of the defendant jail, as well as information regarding layout and

construction of the jail facilities, and the jail’s interest in maintaining the security of the facility
outweighs the public’s right to access to the information. The video shall remain sealed until further
order of the court. The parties shall jointly approach the court regarding the sealed status of the
video at the cessation of the case.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of March, 2015.

/s/ Jane M. Virden
United States Magistrate Judge