Qu v. Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation et al

Filing 180

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER granting 160 Motion for Protective Order; granting 162 Motion for Protective Order; granting 163 Motion for Protective Order. So Ordered by Judge William E. Smith on 7/27/10. (Jackson, Ryan)

Qu v. Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation et al

Doc. 180

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND ___________________________________ LIN LI QU (a/k/a MICHELLE NG) as Surviving spouse of Hiu Lui Ng (a/k/a Jason Ng) individually and as guardian and next friend of their minor children and the beneficiaries of the Estate of Hiu Lui Ng, Raymond Ng and Johnny Ng, ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Central Falls Detention Facility ) Corporation, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________)

C.A. No. 09-53 S

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER WILLIAM E. SMITH, United States District Judge. The Court has reviewed the filings and videotapes submitted by Defendant Central Falls Detention Facility Corporation

(CFDFC), in support of Defendant CFDFC's Motion for Entry of a Protective Order. In determining whether to grant a protective

order, the Court must weigh not only the interests of the moving party, but also any First Amendment rights of the restricted party that are implicated. Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467

Dockets.Justia.com

U.S.

20

(1984).1

Having

viewed

excerpts

from

the

subject

videotapes provided by the parties, the Court finds that the images, absent the context of trial testimony and/or adequate opportunity to give appropriate instructions to jurors, have the potential to prejudice the jury pool for this case. Therefore,

the Court grants the Motion for a Protective Order as follows: 1. Defendant CFDFC will create a copy of the videotapes for each party and electronically "watermark" all such copies; 2. The videotape copies may not be duplicated, copied, and/or distributed in any form by any party except with the express consent of the Court, in which case the Court will order the creation of additional

"watermarked" copies, as necessary; 3. The "watermarked" their copies may only be shown and to the

parties, experts; 4.

counsel,

their

insurers,

their

Premature release, dissemination, or distribution of any portion of the video footage to anyone not

authorized by this Order is expressly prohibited until such time as the videos are admitted into the public

The Court derives its authority to mold a protective order from the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which state "[t]he court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c)(1).
2

1

trial record, or until further order of this Court; and 5. These procedures are necessary in order to ensure a fair trial in this matter. Therefore any violation of

this Order will result in appropriate sanctions. IT IS SO ORDERED:

/s/ William E. Smith
William E. Smith United States District Judge Date: July 27, 2010

3