Alonzo Gay v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al

M.D. Georgia

Alonzo Gay v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket7:25-cv-00108

StatusUnknown

This text of Alonzo Gay v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al (Alonzo Gay v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alonzo Gay v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al, (M.D. Ga. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION ALONZO GAY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-108 (LAG) : GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, et al, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court are the Parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Protective Order (Doc. 15) and Joint Motion to Enter Qualified HIPAA Protective Order (Doc. 16). Therein, the Parties ask the Court to enter a protective order to protect “confidential information” (Doc. 15 at 1) and a protective order to protect “health information” (Doc. 16 at 1). The parties represent that entry of these protective orders “in no way affects this Court’s ultimate decision on whether certain materials may be admissible later in the public record during trial.” (Doc. 15 at 2; Doc. 16 at 2). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may enter a protective order upon finding good cause. Stipulated protective orders have become “commonplace in the federal courts” to allow the parties “to designate particular documents as confidential . . . and postpone[] the necessary ‘good cause’ required for entry of a protective order until the confidential designation is challenged.” Chicago Trib. Co. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, the Court finds these protective orders are warranted to facilitate discovery. The Parties’ Joint Motions (Doc. 15, 16) are GRANTED, and the Parties’ proposed Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (Doc. 15-1) and Stipulated Qualified HIPPA Protective Order (Doc. 16-1) are hereby ADOPTED and made the ORDER of the Court.

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of October, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA VALDOSTA DIVISION ALONZO GAY, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : CASE NO.: 7:25-CV-108 (LAG) : GEORGIA DEPARTMENT OF : CORRECTIONS, et al, : : Defendant. : : ORDER Before the Court are the Parties’ Joint Motion to Enter Protective Order (Doc. 15) and Joint Motion to Enter Qualified HIPAA Protective Order (Doc. 16). Therein, the Parties ask the Court to enter a protective order to protect “confidential information” (Doc. 15 at 1) and a protective order to protect “health information” (Doc. 16 at 1). The parties represent that entry of these protective orders “in no way affects this Court’s ultimate decision on whether certain materials may be admissible later in the public record during trial.” (Doc. 15 at 2; Doc. 16 at 2). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c), the Court may enter a protective order upon finding good cause. Stipulated protective orders have become “commonplace in the federal courts” to allow the parties “to designate particular documents as confidential . . . and postpone[] the necessary ‘good cause’ required for entry of a protective order until the confidential designation is challenged.” Chicago Trib. Co. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F.3d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir. 2001) (citing In re Alexander Grant & Co. Litig., 820 F.2d 352, 356 (11th Cir. 1987)). Accordingly, the Court finds these protective orders are warranted to facilitate discovery. The Parties’ Joint Motions (Doc. 15, 16) are GRANTED, and the Parties’ proposed Confidentiality Agreement and Protective Order (Doc. 15-1) and Stipulated Qualified HIPPA Protective Order (Doc. 16-1) are hereby ADOPTED and made the ORDER of the Court.

SO ORDERED, this 17th day of October, 2025.

/s/ Leslie A. Gardner LESLIE A. GARDNER, CHIEF JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alonzo Gay v. Georgia Department of Corrections, et al, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alonzo-gay-v-georgia-department-of-corrections-et-al-gamd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack