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

Filing 126

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis County and St. Louis County Police Department's Motion for In Camera Examination and Clarification of Protective Order [ECF No. 123 ] is GRANTED, in part. The Court will examine, in camera, photographs, exhibits, and documents to be produced to the Court to determine if photographs and exhibits should be protected from disclosure and if names should be redacted from the submitted documents. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 8/30/16. (EAB)

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 the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis
County and St. Louis County Police Department’s (“Movants”) Motion for In Camera
Examination and Clarification of Protective Order [ECF No. 124]. Movants ask the Court to
conduct an in camera review of a number of photographs which they claim are highly
inflammatory and susceptible to unlawful discrimination. Movants also seek the Court’s
direction regarding the disclosure of the identities of those individuals who did not testify before
the grand jury and did not directly participate in the official investigations, but whose names
appear only incidentally in official documents.
Due to the sensitive nature of these documents, the potential risk of danger to witnesses,
and the opportunity the Court has to examine documents to determine if witness identification is
irrelevant, the Court will conduct an in camera review, as requested. Copies of documents
supplied to the court for in camera inspection must highlight the unredacted names so the Court
may promptly identify the individuals and in the context where their names are listed, determine
if any names should be redacted.

Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney of St. Louis
County and St. Louis County Police Department’s Motion for In Camera Examination and
Clarification of Protective Order [ECF No. 123] is GRANTED, in part. The Court will
examine, in camera, photographs, exhibits, and documents to be produced to the Court to
determine if photographs and exhibits should be protected from disclosure and if names should
be redacted from the submitted documents.
So Ordered this 30th Day of August, 2016.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-