Braggs et al v. Dunn et al, No. 2:2014cv00601 - Document 1348 (M.D. Ala. 2017)

Court Description: PHASE 2A OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REDACT: It is ORDERED that the defendants' motion to redact portions of Dr. David Tytell's transcript (doc. no. 1314 ) is denied. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/25/2017. (kh, )

Download PDF

Braggs et al v. Dunn et al Doc. 1348 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION EDWARD BRAGGS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON S. DUNN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of the Alabama Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:14cv601-MHT (WO) PHASE 2A OPINION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO REDACT The issue the court confronts in this extended litigation is whether to redact the trial testimony of a witness. Beginning in December 2016, the court conducted a two-month bench trial concerning the constitutionality of mental-health care Corrections (ADOC). 3d ---, 2017 (Thompson, WL J.) in the Alabama Department of See Braggs v. Dunn, --- F. Supp. 2773833 (finding (M.D. Ala. liability testimony and other evidence). June based 27, 2017) on trial The defendants have now Dockets.Justia.com moved to redact the transcript of the trial testimony of Dr. David Tytell, the chief psychologist of ADOC. The plaintiffs oppose this motion. The court finds that show the defendants warranting redaction have of failed this to particular good cause information from Dr. Tytell’s testimony. A "strong common law presumption of public access" applies to trial records. Wilson v. Am. Motors Corp., 759 F.2d 1568, 1571 (11th Cir. 1985). This common-law right of access, however, may be overcome by a showing of good cause, which requires “balancing the asserted right of access against the other party's interest in keeping the information confidential.” Romero v. Drummond Co., 480 F.3d 1234, 1246 (11th Cir. 2007). Whether good cause exists depends on “the nature and character of information in question.” Id. Factors to consider include: “whether allowing access would impair court functions or harm legitimate privacy interests, the degree of and likelihood of injury if made public, the reliability of the information, whether there will 2 be an opportunity to respond to the information, whether the information concerns public officials or public concerns, and the availability of a less onerous alternative to sealing the documents.” Id. The portions that the defendants seek to redact are general descriptions of prisoners who committed suicide while in segregation, referred to by their initials, including their history of suicide attempts, housing arrangements, receiving any suicide method, mental-health and care whether at the they time. were The defendants argue that good cause exists for redacting this information because “it includes sensitive medical and mental health information surrounding the deaths of identifiable inmates.” Based on its Def. Br. (doc. no. 1314) at 2. review of the information in Dr. Tytell’s testimony, the court finds that any privacy interest in the information at issue is minimal, and that any harm that would arise from public access is unlikely. three of First, much of the information relating to the six suicides 3 included in Dr. Tytell's testimony was already reported by various media outlets, minimizing any harm that may arise from this particular testimony being public. Second, the prisoners whose suicides are at issue have no privacy interests because they are deceased. See Nat'l Archives & Records Admin. v. Favish, 541 U.S. 157, 168– 69, (2004) itself (“[Privacy] violated by right may improperly in some interfering cases with be the character or memory of a deceased relative, but it is the right of the living, and not that of the dead, which is recognized.”) (quoting Schuyler v. Curtis, 147 N.Y. 434, 447 (1895)). And the defendants have not shown that surviving family members have asserted their privacy interests “in the character and memory of the deceased” with regards Tytell’s testimony. to the information in Dr. Id. (explaining the nature of the privacy interests held by surviving family members in the FOIA defendants medical context). seek and to Lastly, redact is mental-health the not information comparable information 4 that to has the the been subject to previous protective orders in this case: medical records of prisoners, and their testimony about their mental-health symptoms, diagnoses, and treatment. Dr. Tytell's testimony regarding prison suicides is much less detailed and sensitive, due to the level of generality with which Dr. Tytell spoke, and the otherwise publicly available information regarding the same incidents. On the other hand, the portion of Dr. Tytell’s testimony at issue involves a public concern that is “at the heart of the interest protected by the right of access: the citizen’s desire to keep a watchful eye on the workings of public agencies and the operation of government.” Romero, 480 F.3d at 1246 (internal quotation omitted) (citing Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978)). The nature and consequences of the defendants’ segregation practices, including suicides within segregation units, are a major part of the court’s liability findings in this case; the public has a strong interest in learning of 5 these practices and their consequences, as reflected in these suicides, as well as an interest in reviewing the factual basis for the court’s findings. Braggs, --- F.Supp.2d at ---. 2017 WL 2773833, at *45-52. Given the weight of the public concern at stake, the minimal privacy interests articulated by the defendants do not constitute good cause for restricting public access of the trial record. * * * Accordingly, motion to it redact is ORDERED portions of that Dr. the defendants’ David Tytell’s transcript (doc. no. 1314) is denied. DONE, this the 25th day of August, 2017. /s/ Myron H. Thompson UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.