Brown et al v. City of Ferguson, Missouri, et al

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Protective Order [ECF No. 116] is DENIED. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on August 23, 2016. (MCB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
MICHAEL BROWN, SR., et al.,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF FERGUSON, MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:15CV00831 ERW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Protective Order
[ECF No. 116]. Plaintiffs seek to amend the protective order to allow for additional attorneys to
review the confidential information and to add language regarding the creation of redacted
versions of documents. Defendants do not oppose the motion but St. Louis County Office of the
Prosecuting Attorney (“Prosecuting Attorney’s Office”) and St. Louis County Police Department
(“Police Department”) oppose the motion.
The parties, Prosecuting Attorney’s Office, and Police Department participated in
drafting the detailed protective order the Court entered in this matter. Each party had every
opportunity to offer suggestions for changes. Three proposed protective orders were submitted to
the parties for comments and suggested changes before the Court entered the final order. One
change proposed by Defendants was to allow for additional staff members and attorneys to have
access to the Confidential Information, which the Court rejected. The Court concluded the
Confidential Information was critical to both Plaintiffs’ and Defendants’ cases. The Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office and Police Department, who strenuously objected to the release of any
material, will be promptly producing Confidential Information under the strict conditions

specified in the protective order. The Court will not now amend the protective order to allow
Plaintiffs to have additional attorneys with access to the Confidential Information.
The parties are permitted to gain access to vast amounts of information through the
efforts of the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office and various law enforcement organizations because
of the protective order. This information is highly sensitive, and in drafting the protective order,
the Court balanced the needs of the parties to have access to this information with the risks of
inappropriate disclosure. The Court will not increase the risk of improper disclosure of
Confidential Information by granting the relief requested.
There is an insufficient showing as to why the protective order should be modified or as
to how any party will be prejudiced by foreclosing additional access to the Confidential
Information. Further, the Court does not see the need to add the requested language regarding the
creation of redacted documents. Should the parties desire to create redacted documents
differently than the redacted documents created by the Police Department and Prosecuting
Attorney’s Office, the parties should file a motion with the Court.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Amend Protective Order [ECF
No. 116] is DENIED.
So Ordered this 23rd Day of August, 2016.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-