Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Clarke v. Michigan Department of Corrections

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 25, 2017

SHEILA CLARKE, as Personal Representative for The Estate of JANIKA NICOLE EDMOND, deceased, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WARDEN ANTHONY STEWART, individually and in his official capacity; DEPUTY WARDEN DAVID JOHNSON, individually and in his official capacity; DEPUTY WARDEN OSTERHOUT, individually and in his official capacity; CO DIANNA CALLAHAN, individually and in her official capacity; A/RUM KORY MOORE, individually and in his official capacity; CO R'KIA TAYLOR, individually and in his official capacity; SGT. KRISTA SURBIC, individually and in her official capacity; SGT. LOREN HAILES, individually and in her official capacity; CO HEATHER WASHINGTON, individually and in her official capacity; CO JOHANNA BARTEL, individually and in her official capacity; CO ALEXIA JOHNSON, individually and in her official capacity; CO LASHAWNA DONALD, individually and in her official capacity; CO TRACY MAUPINS, individually and in her official capacity; RN MARCIA PORTER, individually and in her official capacity, jointly and severally, Defendants.

          Cary S. McGehee (P42318) Beth M. Rivers (P33614) Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers P.C. Attorneys for Plaintiff

          Rock Wood (P41181) Clifton B. Schneider (P70582) Lisa Geminick (P60964) Attorneys for Defendants MDOC, Stewart, D. Johnson, Osterhout, Taylor, Surbic, Hailes, Washington, Bartel, A. Johnson, Donald and Maupins Michigan Dept. of Attorney General Civil Litigation, Employment & Elections Division

          David Steingold (P29752) Law Offices of David S. Steingold PLLC Attorney for Plaintiff

          Stephen J. Francis (P55473) Dold, Spath & Kiriazis, P.C. Attorneys for Defendant Kory Moore

          MAG. DAVID R. GRAND JUDGE.

          STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING VIDEOS

          ROBERT H. CLELAND, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         The parties concur, and the Court has determined that, surveillance video(s) (“video”) produced by the MDOC is subject to the terms of this protective order for safety and security concerns of the prison facilities, prison staff, visitors and the general public, and prisoners. The release of surveillance video outside of the strictures of this protective order could compromise the ability of the MDOC to maintain order and security in its facilities.

         These surveillance video(s) is marked as “confidential” and “attorney eyes only”. The surveillance video may be reviewed only by counsel of record in reference to this litigation; the surveillance video is not to be released to or viewed by the general public or any current or former prisoner of the MDOC. The surveillance video shall not be copied or saved to any computer. This prohibition includes any portions of the surveillance video. Nor may any portions of the surveillance video be shown, provided to, or otherwise published to any prisoner, former prisoner, or any other person not a Defendant in this case or employed by the MDOC, absent further order of the Court or stipulation by the MDOC.

         The surveillance video may be used by counsel for the parties, their staff, and any expert witness retained by them solely for the purpose of this litigation. The surveillance video may not be disseminated to or kept by any witness and may not be shown to any person incarcerated by the MDOC. The surveillance video shall be returned at the conclusion of this case to Rock Wood, Assistant Attorney General (or his successor), for disposition by the MDOC.

         The surveillance video may not be filed with the Court or the Clerk of the Court unless filed under seal in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 and local court rules. If the surveillance video is used as an exhibit to any deposition, then any portions of the deposition transcript discussing the surveillance video shall be covered by the terms of this protective order, and if any such portions of the deposition transcript are filed with the Court, they must be filed under seal in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P. 5.2 and local court rules.

         The parties agree that if any of the surveillance video subject to this protective order is deemed admissible at trial that the Court will not retain the surveillance video and it shall be returned to the Defendants' counsel.

         IT ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.