Dudley v. City of Kinston et al
Consent PROTECTIVE ORDER - Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 8/9/2019. (Sellers, N.)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CITY OF KINSTON and A.N.
GREENE, in his individual capacity,
CONSENT PROTECTIVE ORDER
Pursuant to Rule 26(c) and with the consent of the parties as designated below, the
Court finds and orders as follows:
Defendants served a subpoena on Matt Delbridge, District Attorney for North
Carolina’s 9th Prosecutorial District, asking him to produce the following documents: “any
and all documents relating to and/or discussing State v. Howard Denice Dudley, including
but not limited to File No. 91-CRS-11955. Specifically requested is the entire copy of the
District Attorney’s file (as opposed to the Clerk’s file) reflecting this case.”
The documents requested by Defendants from Mr. Delbridge may be
material and relevant to the claims and defenses asserted in this civil action pursuant to
Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The documents that Defendants command Mr. Delbridge to produce include
documents that constitute attorney work product that is protected by the attorney work
product privilege and state law pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-904; records of criminal
investigations by public law enforcement agencies that are protected by state law pursuant
to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 132-1.4(a); confidential medical information and medical examination
reports of Amy Moore; personally identifying information of the plaintiff, Amy Moore,
and witnesses; Lenoir County Department of Social Services reports that are protected by
state law pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-2901(b); and a portion of a juvenile court record
that is protected by state law pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-3000(b).
With the consent of the parties and Mr. Delbridge, the Court finds that a
protective order is appropriate and imposes the following terms and conditions on the use
and disclosure of protected records. Such records shall be revealed only to and used only
by “qualified persons” as provided in subparagraph 5(a)-(d) of this Order and only in
connection with the prosecution and defense of this lawsuit, and any appeal thereof.
As used herein, “qualified persons” means:
a. This Court, including its staff and any jury selected in this case, under such
safeguards as are provided in this Order or as are required by the Court in the
event any confidential matter is to be used or introduced at trial;
b. Present and subsequent in-house and outside counsel for the parties to this
action, together with their paralegals, investigators and employees actually
working on the case at any time;
c. Outside experts consulted or retained by counsel in connection with the
preparation for trial or trial;
d. The individual and entity parties to this action and witnesses in connection
with the preparation for trial or at trial; and
e. Representatives of insurance carriers for the parties.
It shall be the responsibility of counsel for each party to this action to ensure
that qualified persons receiving any confidential material pursuant to this Order have
knowledge of the terms of this Order and agree to be bound by them.
Ultimate disposition of protected materials is subject to final Order of the
Court upon completion of litigation.
Although this Order is entered with the consent of the parties, it shall not
constitute a waiver of the parties’ right to object to the disclosure of material on grounds
relating to discovery or to its admissibility into evidence.
Each time a party seeks to file under seal confidential documents, things,
and/or information, specifically those enumerated in Paragraph 3 which include Bates
Stamped pages “DA000009-10, DA000100-158,” said party shall accompany the request
with a motion to seal and a supporting memorandum of law specifying (a) the exact
documents, things, and/or information, or portions thereof, for which filing under seal is
requested; (b) where it is necessary for the court to determine the source of the public’s
right to access before a request to seal may be evaluated, whether any such request to seal
seeks to overcome the common law or the First Amendment presumption to access; (c) the
specific qualities of the material at issue which justify sealing such material, taking into
account the balance of competing interests in access; (d) the reasons why alternatives to
sealing are inadequate; and, (e) whether there is consent to the motion. Finally, in addition
to the motion and supporting memorandum, said party must set out such findings in a
proposed order to seal for the court.
SO ORDERED, this the _____ day of July, 2019.
Dated: August 9, 2019
Robert T. Numbers, II
United States Magistrate Judge
James C. Dever, III
United States District Court Judge
/s/ Kathryn H. Shields
Special Deputy Attorney General
N.C. State Bar No. 43200
N.C. Department of Justice
P O Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629
Phone: (919) 716-6800
Counsel for District Attorney Delbridge
/s/ Sonya Pfeiffer
/s/ David S. Rudolf
David S. Rudolf
225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 200
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Counsel for Plaintiff
/s/ Elizabeth A. Martineau
Elizabeth A. Martineau
/s/ Thomas Olik
/s/ Michael D. Mori
Michael D. Mori
Martineau King, PLLC
P.O. Box 31188
Charlotte, North Carolina 28231
Counsel for Defendants
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?