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

Filing 127

MEMORANDUM AND 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 GRA NTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that photographs shall be disclosed to counsel for the parties as indicated supra, under condition of the protective order, including Grand Jury Exhibits 15, 101, 102, 104, 105, and 106. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grand Jury Exhibits 81, 88, and 90 will not be disclosed. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on September 12, 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 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. 123]. 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 those individuals who did not testify to the grand jury and
did not directly participate in the official investigations but whose names appear only
incidentally in an official document.1
The Court has conducted an in camera review of the documents submitted by Movants
and makes the following rulings.
On August 29, 2016, Linda Wasserman, representing the Office of the Prosecuting
Attorney of St. Louis County (“Prosecutor’s Office”), produced 3412 photographs marked

1

The Court expects to receive documents from the Prosecutor’s Office this week which contain
the names of individuals that office believes should be reviewed by the Court to determine if the
names should be redacted.
2
This number includes separate photographs of exhibit numbers on paper images.

“Confidential Sealed Document RE Protective Order for Judge Webber’s Eyes Only.” The Court
has examined each photograph. The following photographs are ordered produced to counsel for
the parties designed by the protective order:
Series 1 (2401)
1. DSC_0001.JPG;
2. DSC_0018.JPG;
3. DSC_0019.JPG;
4. DSC_0020.JPG;
5. DSC_0021.JPG;
6. DSC_0022.JPG;
7. DSC_0023.JPG;
8. DSC_0024.JPG;
9. DSC_0025.JPG;
10. DSC_0026.JPG;
11. DSC_0027.JPG;
12. DSC_0028.JPG;
13. DSC_0029.JPG;
14. DSC_0030.JPG;
15. DSC_0032.JPG;
16. DSC_0033.JPG;
17. DSC_0034.JPG;
18. DSC_0035.JPG;
19. DSC_0036.JPG;
20. DSC_0037.JPG;
21. DSC_0038.JPG;
22. DSC_0039.JPG;
23. DSC_0040.JPG;
24. DSC_0041.JPG;
25. DSC_0042.JPG;
26. DSC_0043.JPG;
27. DSC_0044.JPG;
28. DSC_0045.JPG;
29. DSC_0046.JPG;
30. DSC_0047.JPG;
31. DSC_0048.JPG;

32. DSC_0049.JPG;
33. DSC_0050.JPG;
34. DSC_0051.JPG;
35. DSC_0052.JPG;
36. DSC_0053.JPG;
37. DSC_0054.JPG;
38. DSC_0055.JPG;
39. DSC_0056.JPG;
40. DSC_0057.JPG;
41. DSC_0058.JPG;
42. DSC_0064.JPG;
43. DSC_0065.JPG;
44. DSC_0066.JPG;
45. DSC_0067.JPG;
46. DSC_0068.JPG;
47. DSC_0070.JPG;
48. DSC_0071.JPG;
49. DSC_0072.JPG;
50. DSC_0073.JPG;
51. DSC_0074.JPG;
52. DSC_0075.JPG;
53. DSC_0076.JPG;
54. DSC_0077.JPG;
55. DSC_0078.JPG;
56. DSC_0079.JPG;
57. DSC_0080.JPG;
58. DSC_0081.JPG;
59. DSC_0082.JPG;
60. DSC_0083.JPG;
61. DSC_0084.JPG;
62. DSC_0085.JPG;

63. DSC_0087.JPG;
64. DSC_0088.JPG;
65. DSC_0089.JPG;
66. DSC_0090.JPG;
67. DSC_0102.JPG;
68. DSC_0103.JPG;
69. DSC_0104.JPG;
70. DSC_0105.JPG;
71. DSC_0106.JPG;
72. DSC_0107.JPG;
73. DSC_0108.JPG;
74. DSC_0109.JPG;
75. DSC_0110.JPG;
76. DSC_0111.JPG;
77. DSC_0112.JPG;
78. DSC_0113.JPG;
79. DSC_0116.JPG;
80. DSC_0117.JPG;
81. DSC_0118.JPG;
82. DSC_0119.JPG;
83. DSC_0120.JPG;
84. DSC_0121.JPG;
85. DSC_0125.JPG;
86. DSC_0126.JPG;
87. DSC_0149.JPG;
88. DSC_0150.JPG;
89. DSC_0151.JPG;
90. DSC_0152.JPG;
91. DSC_0153.JPG;
92. DSC_0154.JPG;

96. DSC_0004.JPG;
97. DSC_0005.JPG;
98. DSC_0006.JPG;

99. DSC_0007.JPG;
100. DSC_0008.JPG;
101. DSC_0009.JPG;

Series 2 (3167)
93. DSC_0001.JPG;
94. DSC_0002.JPG;
95. DSC_0003.JPG;

-2-

102. DSC_0010.JPG;
103. DSC_0011.JPG;
104. DSC_0012.JPG;
105. DSC_0013.JPG;
106. DSC_0014.JPG;
107. DSC_0015.JPG;
108. DSC_0016.JPG;
109. DSC_0017.JPG;
110. DSC_0018.JPG;
111. DSC_0019.JPG;
112. DSC_0020.JPG;
113. DSC_0021.JPG;
114. DSC_0022.JPG;
115. DSC_0023.JPG;
116. DSC_0024.JPG;
117. DSC_0025.JPG;
118. DSC_0026.JPG;
119. DSC_0027.JPG;
120. DSC_0028.JPG;
121. DSC_0029.JPG;
122. DSC_0030.JPG;
123. DSC_0031.JPG;
124. DSC_0032.JPG;
125. DSC_0033.JPG;
126. DSC_0034.JPG;
127. DSC_0035.JPG;
128. DSC_0036.JPG;
129. DSC_0037.JPG;
130. DSC_0038.JPG;
131. DSC_0039.JPG;
132. DSC_0040.JPG;
133. DSC_0041.JPG;
134. DSC_0042.JPG;
135. DSC_0043.JPG;
136. DSC_0044.JPG;
137. DSC_0045.JPG;
138. DSC_0046.JPG;
139. DSC_0047.JPG;
140. DSC_0048.JPG;
141. DSC_0049.JPG;
142. DSC_0050.JPG;

143. DSC_0051.JPG;
144. DSC_0052.JPG;
145. DSC_0053.JPG;
146. DSC_0054.JPG;
147. DSC_0055.JPG;
148. DSC_0056.JPG;
149. DSC_0057.JPG;
150. DSC_0058.JPG;
151. DSC_0059.JPG;
152. DSC_0060.JPG;
153. DSC_0061.JPG;
154. DSC_0062.JPG;
155. DSC_0063.JPG;
156. DSC_0064.JPG;
157. DSC_0065.JPG;
158. DSC_0066.JPG;
159. DSC_0067.JPG;
160. DSC_0068.JPG;
161. DSC_0086.JPG;
162. DSC_0101.JPG;
163. DSC_0102.JPG;
164. DSC_0103.JPG;
165. DSC_0104.JPG;
166. DSC_0105.JPG;
167. DSC_0106.JPG;
168. DSC_0107.JPG;
169. DSC_0108.JPG;
170. DSC_0109.JPG;
171. DSC_0110.JPG;
172. DSC_0111.JPG;
173. DSC_0112.JPG;
174. DSC_0113.JPG;
175. DSC_0114.JPG;
176. DSC_0115.JPG;
177. DSC_0116.JPG;
178. DSC_0117.JPG;
179. DSC_0118.JPG;
180. DSC_0119.JPG;
181. DSC_0120.JPG;
182. DSC_0121.JPG;
183. DSC_0122.JPG;

184. DSC_0123.JPG;
185. DSC_0124.JPG;
186. DSC_0125.JPG;
187. DSC_0126.JPG;
188. DSC_0127.JPG;
189. DSC_0128.JPG;
190. DSC_0129.JPG;
191. DSC_0130.JPG;
192. DSC_0131.JPG;
193. DSC_0132.JPG;
194. DSC_0133.JPG;
195. DSC_0134.JPG;
196. DSC_0135.JPG;
197. DSC_0136.JPG;
198. DSC_0137.JPG;
199. DSC_0138.JPG;
200. DSC_0139.JPG;
201. DSC_0140.JPG;
202. DSC_0141.JPG;
203. DSC_0142.JPG;
204. DSC_0143.JPG;
205. DSC_0144.JPG;
206. DSC_0145.JPG;
207. DSC_0146.JPG;
208. DSC_0147.JPG;
209. DSC_0148.JPG;
210. DSC_0149.JPG;
211. DSC_0150.JPG;
212. DSC_0151.JPG;
213. DSC_0152.JPG;
214. DSC_0153.JPG;
215. DSC_0154.JPG;
216. DSC_0155.JPG;
217. DSC_0156.JPG;
218. DSC_0157.JPG;
219. DSC_0158.JPG;
220. DSC_0159.JPG;
221. DSC_0160.JPG;
222. DSC_0161.JPG;

The following photographs are excluded from production. A party “may obtain discovery
regarding nonprivileged matter that is relevant to [its] claim or defense and proportional to the

-3-

needs of the case.” Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1). These photographs are extremely inflammatory.
Further, these photographs do not further any claim or defense asserted by a party and will not be
admissible at a trial. Discovery of these photographs is not proportional to the needs of the case.
See Haukereid v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 816 F.3d 527, 534 (8th Cir. 2016) (affirming a
district court’s denial of a discovery request stating the record already contained evidence about
the issue and the party had not shown if the discovery request had been granted, the evidence
would have affected the issue.). Included in the 222 photographs ordered disclosed are autopsy
photographs of Michael Brown. They are to be delivered to counsel designated by the protective
order by the Prosecutor’s Office. These photographs are relevant for ballistic or other evidentiary
purposes. The following photographs, which are inflammatory and have no relevance separate
and apart from their inflammatory nature, will not be disclosed.
Series 1 (2401)
1. DSC_0002.JPG;
2. DSC_0003.JPG;
3. DSC_0004.JPG;
4. DSC_0005.JPG;
5. DSC_0006.JPG;
6. DSC_0007.JPG:
7. DSC_0008.JPG;
8. DSC_0009.JPG;
9. DSC_0010.JPG;
10. DSC_0011.JPG;
11. DSC_0012.JPG;
12. DSC_0013.JPG;
13. DSC_0014.JPG;
14. DSC_0015.JPG;
15. DSC_0016.JPG:
16. DSC_0017.JPG
17. DSC_0031.JPG;
18. DSC_0059.JPG;
19. DSC_0060.JPG;
20. DSC_0061.JPG;
21. DSC_0062.JPG;

22. DSC_0063.JPG;
23. DSC_0069.JPG;
24. DSC_0086.JPG;
25. DSC_0091.JPG;
26. DSC_0092.JPG;
27. DSC_0093.JPG;
28. DSC_0094.JPG;
29. DSC_0095.JPG;
30. DSC_0096.JPG;
31. DSC_0097.JPG;
32. DSC_0098.JPG;
33. DSC_0099.JPG;
34. DSC_0100.JPG;
35. DSC_0101.JPG;
36. DSC_0114.JPG;
37. DSC_0115.JPG;
38. DSC_0122.JPG;
39. DSC_0123.JPG;
40. DSC_0124.JPG;
41. DSC_0127.JPG;
42. DSC_0128.JPG;

-4-

43. DSC_0129.JPG;
44. DSC_0130.JPG;
45. DSC_0131.JPG;
46. DSC_0132.JPG;
47. DSC_0133.JPG;
48. DSC_0134.JPG;
49. DSC_0135.JPG;
50. DSC_0136.JPG;
51. DSC_0137.JPG;
52. DSC_0138.JPG;
53. DSC_0139.JPG;
54. DSC_0140.JPG;
55. DSC_0141.JPG;
56. DSC_0142.JPG;
57. DSC_0143.JPG:
58. DSC_0144.JPG;
59. DSC_0145.JPG;
60. DSC_0146.JPG;
61. DSC_0147.JPG;
62. DSC_0148.JPG;

Series 2 ( 3167)
63. DSC_0069.JPG;
64. DSC_0070.JPG;
65. DSC_0071.JPG;
66. DSC_0072.JPG;
67. DSC_0073.JPG;
68. DSC_0074.JPG;
69. DSC_0075.JPG;
70. DSC_0076.JPG;
71. DSC_0077.JPG;
72. DSC_0078.JPG;
73. DSC_0079.JPG;

74. DSC_0080.JPG;
75. DSC_0081.JPG;
76. DSC_0082.JPG;
77. DSC_0083.JPG;
78. DSC_0084.JPG;
79. DSC_0085.JPG;
80. DSC_0087.JPG;
81. DSC_0088.JPG;
82. DSC_0089.JPG;
83. DSC_0090.JPG;
84. DSC_0091.JPG;

85. DSC_0092.JPG;
86. DSC_0093.JPG;
87. DSC_0094.JPG;
88. DSC_0095.JPG;
89. DSC_0096.JPG;
90. DSC_0097.JPG;
91. DSC_0098.JPG;
92. DSC_0099.JPG;
93. DSC_0100.JPG.

Grand jury exhibits numbered 15, 101, 102, 104, 105, and 106 will be ordered disclosed
to the parties. The Court received eight pages containing paper images of thirty-one unidentified
and unnumbered photographs depicting streets, residential buildings, and an apparent memorial.
There is no showing these photographs should be protected from disclosure.
The work-product doctrine applies to documents and tangible things, prepared in
anticipation of litigation or for trial, by or for another party or by or for that other party’s
representative. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(3). The protections of the work-product doctrine in FRCP
26(b)(3) do not extend to individuals or entities who are not a party to the present litigation. In re
California Public Util. Comm’n, 892 F.2d 778, 781 (9th Cir. 1989); see Awkright Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Nat’s Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 19 F.3d 1432 (6th Cir. 1994) (per curiam
unpublished opinion); see also Schultz v. Talley, 152 F.R.D. 181, 185 (W.D. Mo. 1993)
(“Documents prepared for one who is not a party to the present suit are wholly unprotected even
though the person may be a party to a closely related lawsuit . . . (citation omitted)). Here, the
Prosecutor’s Office is not a party to this litigation; thus, the protections of the work-product
doctrine do not apply.
The Western District of Pennsylvania, along with several other district courts, have held
FRCP 26(b)(3) does not encompass all of the protections of the work product doctrine as
-5-

established in Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947). Serrano v. Chesapeake Appalachia,
LLC, 298 F.R.D. 271, 277-280 (W.D. Penn. 2014). These courts determined a court must
consider all the purposes for the privilege as documented in Hickman: “preventing discovery
from chilling attorney’s ability to formulate their legal theories and prepare their cases,
preventing opponents from free-loading off their adversaries’ preparation, and preventing
disruption of ongoing litigation.” Id.at 278.3 These purposes are not met in this matter.
Accordingly, a representative of the Prosecutor’s Office is ordered to deliver the material
examined in camera, except for excluded material, to counsel for the parties under the terms of
the protective order issued by this Court on June 6, 2016. The Court is returning all photographs
produced for in camera inspection to the Prosecutor’s Office.
Grand jury exhibits 88 and 90 will not be ordered to be disclosed by the Court. These
documents contain proprietary police information containing police radio frequencies, model
numbers, and serial numbers. Disclosure of this information jeopardizes police communication,
is not relevant to this matter and is not discoverable. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 26(b)(1).
Pursuant to the Protective Order, Grand jury exhibit 81 will not be disclosed. The parties
should submit a discovery request to the agency which owns the document.
The Court anticipates receipt of remaining documents, not already disclosed, with
requested redaction of names not significant to the investigation for in camera inspection. As
soon as those documents are received, the Court will complete its in camera inspection and rule
on disclosure of those documents.
Accordingly,
3

While the Court is not concluding the parties are “free-loading” off their adversaries
preparation, the Court is well aware the parties substantially benefit from the extraordinary work
of the Prosecutor’s Office in preparing, assembling and producing the vast information being
disclosed.
-6-

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, and DENIED, in part.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that photographs shall be disclosed to counsel for the
parties as indicated supra, under condition of the protective order, including Grand Jury Exhibits
15, 101, 102, 104, 105, and 106.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Grand Jury Exhibits 81, 88, and 90 will not be
disclosed.
So Ordered this 12th Day of September, 2016.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-7-