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

Filing 153

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. (See Full Order.) During the telephone conference held on December 14, 2016, the Court directed Plaintiffs to file a motion regarding their argument additional attorneys should be permitted to view confidential information und er the protective orders issued in this case. The Court has since reviewed the docket and determined this issue has already been conclusively decided by the Court. Because the Court has already determined this issue, there is no need for Plaintiffs to file an additional motion regarding this matter. Signed by District Judge E. Richard Webber on 12/15/2016. (CBL)

Case: 4:15-cv-00831-ERW Doc. #: 153 Filed: 12/15/16 Page: 1 of 2 PageID #: 1694

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
During the telephone conference held on December 14, 2016, the Court directed
Plaintiffs to file a motion regarding their argument additional attorneys should be permitted to
view confidential information under the protective orders issued in this case. The Court has since
reviewed the docket and determined this issue has already been conclusively decided by the
Court.
On August 1, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the protective order requesting
additional lead counsel be designated because Plaintiffs were represented by separate counsel.
On learning this information, the Court asked Plaintiffs’ counsel to update the docket and enter
their appearances according to which Plaintiffs they each represented. At that time, the Court
was informed the docket was correct, and each attorney entered on behalf of Plaintiffs
represented both Plaintiffs. On August 8, 2016, the St. Louis County Police Department and
Office of the Prosecuting Attorney objected to Plaintiffs’ request to amend the protective order.
On August 23, 2016, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to amend the protective order,
which denied Plaintiffs’ request to designate additional counsel under the protective order [ECF
No. 122]. Plaintiffs are permitted to designate two attorneys, and two staff persons to access the

Case: 4:15-cv-00831-ERW Doc. #: 153 Filed: 12/15/16 Page: 2 of 2 PageID #: 1695

confidential information. Plaintiffs may designate two attorneys as staff persons, but only four
individuals, in total, will be permitted access to the confidential information. Because the Court
has already determined this issue, there is no need for Plaintiffs to file an additional motion
regarding this matter.
So Ordered this 15th Day of December, 2016.

E. RICHARD WEBBER
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-