Gunter v. Doe

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedJune 1, 2021
Docket1:20-cv-00029
StatusUnknown

This text of Gunter v. Doe (Gunter v. Doe) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Gunter v. Doe, (W.D.N.C. 2021).

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00029-MR

KEVIN CRAWFORD GUNTER, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) PROTECTIVE ORDER ) JOHN DOE, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________ )

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Consent Motion of for Entry of Protective Order filed by Defendant Keith D’Amico [Doc. 35]. The Defendant D’Amico asks the Court to enter a protective order authorizing and governing the production of confidential documents, material, and information (“Confidential Information”). Defendant relates that, in the course of the litigation, it is anticipated that Confidential Information will be needed to disclosed during the course of the litigation, including information that relates to the Plaintiff, an inmate currently or formerly in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety, Division of Adult Corrections (“DAC”), or that relates to current or former employees, contract employees or independent contractors of DAC. On review of Defendants’ motion, the Court finds that such information may be deemed confidential under federal and state law, including N.C.G.S.

§§ 126-22(3) and -24, § 122C-52, § 132-1.7, §§ 148-74 and -76; Goble v. Bounds, 13 N.C. App. 579, 581, 186 S.E.2d 638, 639, aff’d, 281 N.C. 307, 188 S.E.2d 347 (1972); Paine v. Baker, 595 F.2d 197, 200 (4th Cir. 1979),

cert. denied, 444 U.S. 925 (1979); 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et seq.; 42 C.F.R. 2.1 et seq.; and 45 C.F.R. §§ 160-164. Due to the confidential nature of much of the information that will be produced in this matter, a protective order is necessary to authorize the

release of such confidential information and to ensure that such confidential information is not disclosed or used for any purpose except in connection with this litigation. Counsel for the Plaintiff, who is appearing for the limited

purpose of conducting discovery in this matter, has consented to the entry of a protective order. [Doc. 35 at 15]. The Court will, therefore, grant Defendant’s request for a protective order. The Motion [Doc. 35] is hereby GRANTED, and the Court enters the

following order. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. Scope of the Order. This Order requires DAC to disclose Confidential Information, as defined and designated in accordance with this Order, to Counsel for Defendant D’Amico. This Order governs the handling and disclosure of all documents, materials and information

identified, produced, given, exchanged, obtained, or filed herein and which are designated by DAC as “confidential information.” 2. Agreement on Use of Confidential Information. All

Confidential Information, as defined and designated in accordance with this Order, shall be used solely in the prosecution or defense of this action including, but not limited to, mediation, other alternative dispute resolution processes, any other settlement process, and all other pre-

trial, trial and post-trial proceedings in this action and shall not be used or disclosed by any person for any other purpose. 3. “Disclosure.” When used in this Order, the term “Disclosure”

shall mean to provide, impart, transmit, transfer, convey, publish, or otherwise make available. 4. “Confidential Information.” For the purposes of this Order and during the course of this litigation, the parties to this Order identify

“General Confidential Information” and define it as follows: a. “General Confidential Information” means: (1) Inmate records of Plaintiff Kevin Crawford Gunter

including, but not limited to, grievances, use-of-force reports, incident reports, external and internal movement records, confidential inmate witness

statements provided in the course of disciplinary investigations, and infraction reports pertaining to Plaintiff;

(2) The medical records maintained by the DAC pertaining to Plaintiff Kevin Crawford Gunter; (3) The mental health records maintained by the DAC pertaining to Plaintiff Kevin Crawford Gunter; and

(4) Other documents, materials, or information that is potentially embarrassing or invasive of the privacy of a person not a party to this litigation and therefore an

appropriate subject of a Consent Order. b. “Attorneys’ Eyes Only Confidential Information” means: (1) “Personally Identifiable Information”, as that phrase is defined in 45 C.F.R. § 75.2, of current or former

employees and contractors of the Department, such as but not limited to date of birth, social security numbers, home addresses and telephone numbers,

insurance records or designations, medical and/or disability information, and other purely private information;

(2) The personal financial records, telephone records, and e-mail records of current or former employees and contractors of the Department; and

(3) Other non-public information as provided in N.C.G.S. § 132-1.7, which includes specific security information or detailed plans, patterns, or practices associated with prison operations, such as certain

investigations, security designations, staffing patterns and logs, schematic or other drawings and diagrams, and other sensitive security information.

5. Disclosure of Confidential Information. General Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to anyone except: a. The court and its personnel; b. The parties to this action as required by law and pursuant

to the terms of this Order; c. Shumaker, Loop, & Kendrick, LLP, Counsel for Defendant D’Amico in this action and employees and/or vendors of

Shumaker, Loop, & Kendrick, LLP; d. Members of the Inmate Grievance Resolution Board; e. Experts or consultants specifically retained by the parties

or their attorneys to assist them in the preparation of this case or to serve as expert witnesses at the trial of this action, but only after execution of a Confidentiality

Agreement as provided in Paragraph 6; f. Court reporters or videographers engaged to record depositions, hearings or the trial of this action; g. Witnesses at any deposition in this matter as well as

witnesses or jurors at the trial of this matter; and h. Defendant D’Amico’s professional liability insurance carrier.

6. Disclosure of Attorneys’ Eyes Only Confidential Information. Attorneys’ Eyes Only Confidential Information shall not be disclosed to anyone except: a. The court and its personnel;

b. Counsel for the parties to this action and employees of said counsel; c. Experts or consultants specifically retained by the parties or

their attorneys to assist them in the preparation of this case or to serve as expert witnesses at the trial of this action, but only after execution of a Confidentiality

Agreement as provided in Paragraph 8; and d. Court reporters or videographers engaged to record

depositions, hearings, or the trial in this action. 7. Withdrawal of Plaintiff’s Counsel. In the event that counsel for Plaintiff withdraws from representation during the pendency of this

litigation and Plaintiff proceeds pro se, any Attorneys’ Eyes Only Confidential Information disclosed to counsel for Plaintiff may not thereafter be disclosed to Plaintiff and shall instead be returned to

defense counsel.

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

Related

Goble v. Bounds
188 S.E.2d 347 (Supreme Court of North Carolina, 1972)
Goble v. Bounds
186 S.E.2d 638 (Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1972)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Gunter v. Doe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunter-v-doe-ncwd-2021.