Payne v. Britten et al

Filing 122

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Protective Order (filing 114 ) is denied. Defendants' Motion to Seal (filing 117 ) is granted and filing 119 shall remain sealed. Defendants are reminded that I may, at a later date, choose to unseal filing 119 . The Clerk of the court is directed to restrict filing 118 . However, I warn the parties that I may, at a later date, choose to lift the restriction on filing 118 . Ordered by Senior Judge Richard G. Kopf. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(GJG)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER M. PAYNE,
Plaintiff,
v.
FRED BRITTEN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

4:11CV3017

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before me on Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order. (Filing
114.) Also pending is Defendants’ Motion to Seal. (Filing 117.) I discuss each
Motion below.
On October 17, 2014, Plaintiff filed Motion for Protective Order. (Filing 114.)
In the Motion, Plaintiff states Defendants will eventually file certain mail items that
contain private information. (Id.; Filing 114-1.) Plaintiff believes these mail items
should be sealed to prohibit his “personal and private thoughts from being
disseminated to the public.” (Filing 114-1 at CM/ECF p. 2.) Plaintiff also wants to
protect the intended recipients of the mail items from “harassment.” (Id.) Plaintiff
previously filed a similar Motion in this matter (filing 86), which the court denied
(filing 93).
“The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from
annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
The burden of establishing good cause rests with the movant. General Dynamics
Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973).
After careful review, I find that Plaintiff has failed to establish good cause to
issue a protective order in this matter. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective
Order (filing 114) is denied.

On November 5, 2014, Defendants filed two indices of evidence containing 14
total letters. (Filings 118 and 119.) Three of the letters were provisionally filed under
seal in accordance with my October 29, 2014, Memorandum and Order. (Filing 119;
see also Filing 116.) In the Motion to Seal, Defendants ask me to issue an order
officially sealing the provisionally sealed letters. (Filing 117.)
Defendants’ Motion to Seal is granted and filing 119 shall remain sealed.
However, Defendants are reminded that I may, at a later date, choose to unseal filing
119. Out of an abundance of caution, I will also restrict filing 118.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
1.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Protective Order (filing 114) is denied.

2.
Defendants’ Motion to Seal (filing 117) is granted and filing 119 shall
remain sealed. Defendants are reminded that I may, at a later date, choose to unseal
filing 119.
3.
The Clerk of the court is directed to restrict filing 118. However, I warn
the parties that I may, at a later date, choose to lift the restriction on filing 118.
DATED this 13th day of November, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
Richard G. Kopf
Senior United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no
agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility
for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work
or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2