Bethel v. Warden Ohio State Penitentiary

Filing 63

PROTECTIVE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 9/30/2013. (kpf1)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION AT COLUMBUS
ROBERT BETHEL,
:
Petitioner,

Case No. 2:10-cv-391
:

District Judge Michael R. Barrett
Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz

-vsDAVID BOBBY, Warden,
:
Respondent.

PROTECTIVE ORDER
This capital habeas corpus case is before the Court on the parties’ Stipulation for a
Protective Order (Doc. No. 62)1. Pursuant to that Stipulation, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. This Protective Order governs the use and protection of the information that is the subject
matter of Petitioner Bethel’s Motion for Discovery filed under seal on March 12, 2013 (Doc. No.
50). That sealed information (hereinafter referred to as “Sealed Information”) shall be voluntarily
provided to Bethel’s counsel by counsel for the Warden. To prevent later dispute, the Warden’s
counsel shall retain a copy of all Sealed Information with each unit thereof marked for
identification (e.g., if pages of documents are produced, each page shall be distinctively marked).
2. The Sealed Information shall be treated as confidential and for review by counsel only. The
Sealed Information may be disclosed only to Bethel’s counsel or the agents or employees of
Bethel’s counsel. Without prior court approval, no part of the Sealed Information may be
disclosed to Bethel or to any person who is not Bethel’s counsel or an agent or employee of
Bethel’s counsel.
1

The referenced document bears the caption “Stipulated Protective Order,” but it is not signed by a judge.
1

3. If Bethel’s counsel wishes to file any of the Sealed Information in their representation of
Bethel, counsel will first obtain Court permission to file the Sealed Information under seal.
4. In the event that Bethel’s counsel wishes to disclose any of the Sealed Information to Bethel,
counsel will first file a motion for court authorization to do so. Bethel’s counsel will first seek
permission to file any such motion under seal.
5. This Protective Order applies only to the Sealed Information and does not in any way affect
the rights of either party to seek discovery on other issues before the Court.
6. The fact that the Warden is voluntarily providing the Sealed Information should not be
construed as a concession that the information is relevant to any claims before the Court or that it
may be considered by the Court via expansion of the record or other means.
7. Per authority of Procter &Gamble Co.v. Bankers Trust Co., 78 F.3d 219 (6th Cir. 1996), no
document may be filed with the Court under seal without prior permission as to each such filing,
upon motion and for good cause shown, including the legal basis for filing under seal. This
Protective Order does not authorize filing under seal.
September 30, 2013.
s/ Michael R. Merz
United States Magistrate Judge

2