League of Women Voters of Arkansas et al v. Thurston et al, No. 5:2020cv05174 - Document 79 (W.D. Ark. 2022)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 78 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Honorable P. K. Holmes III on November 29, 2022. (tg)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
League of Women Voters of Arkansas et al v. Thurston et al Doc. 79 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF ARKANSAS, et al. PLAINTIFFS No. 5:20-cv-05174 JOHN THURSTON, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State of Arkansas, et al. DEFENDANTS OPINION AND ORDER Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion (Doc. 78) for protective order and proposed protective order (Doc. 78-1). The parties seek protection of medical information. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will GRANT the motion and enter a revised protective order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c)(1)(G) provides that “[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.” “The burden is therefore upon the movant to show the necessity of its issuance, which contemplates ‘a particular and specific demonstration of fact, as distinguished from stereotyped and conclusory statements.’” Gen. Dynamics Corp. v. Selb Mfg. Co., 481 F.2d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 1973) (citing Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 2035 at 264-65). The parties have shown good cause for the entry of a protective order as to documents containing confidential information. Federal law generally prohibits the disclosure of the protected health information of third parties, but the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191, 110 Stat. 1936 (also known as “HIPAA”) allows disclosure of this information for purposes of litigation where a protective order is in place. See 45 C.F.R. § 164.512(e)(v)(A). Given the heightened privacy interest in the information to be protected and the 1 Dockets.Justia.com public policy against public disclosure of that information, the Court finds that the parties have shown sufficient good cause to have the requested information produced subject to a protective order. The Court will separately enter a revised protective order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 29th day of November, 2022. /s/P. K. Holmes, III P.K. HOLMES, III U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE 2
]]>
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.
