Teetz v. Sedgwick Cnty.

Full title: MARQUAN TEETZ, as Next Friend and Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF…

Court: United States District Court, District of Kansas

Date published: Dec 13, 2022

6:22-cv-01134 (D. Kan. Dec. 13, 2022)

Opinion

6:22-cv-01134

12-13-2022

MARQUAN TEETZ, as Next Friend and Personal Representative of the ESTATE OF CEDRIC LOFTON, deceased, Plaintiff, v. Sedgwick County, Kansas; City of Wichita, Kansas; et. al. Defendants.

Angel D. Mitchell, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING SAINT FRANCIS MINISTRIES' PRODUCTION

Angel D. Mitchell, U.S. Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the court on Non-Party Sant Francis Ministries' (“SFM”) Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order. (ECF 69.) By way of this motion, SFM seeks a protective order to govern material it intends to produce in response to plaintiff's November 23 subpoena (ECF 52). That subpoena requests that SFM produce the following records:

a. Your entire file relating to Cedric Lofton.

b. All documents and communications (e.g., letters, emails, text messages, instant messages) relating to any communication with Cedric Lofton's foster father, Tanea Randolph, relating to Cedric Lofton from September 1, 2021, to the present.

c. All documents and communications relating to any communication (e.g., letters, emails, text messages, instant messages) with the Wichita Police Department relating to Cedric Lofton from September 1, 2021, to the present.

(ECF 52, at 9-12.) SFM contends that these categories of documents require protection from public disclosure because responsive documents contain confidential information regarding minor children adjudicated to be in need of care pursuant to KAN. STAT. ANN. § 38-2201, et. seq. SFM further contends this information should be protected because its disclosure and use is restricted 1 by statute or could potentially cause harm to the interests of non-party individuals and/or employees, including their identities, which should be protected from public disclosure given the nature and circumstances of this case.

For good cause shown under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26(c), the Court grants the motion and enters the following Protective Order to govern SFM's production to be made in response to Plaintiff's subpoena. The Court finds that the disclosure of such records is necessary for the proceedings before this court and is made by agreement of the parties. Accordingly, SFM may produce said records subject to all terms, restrictions, and protections of the Protective Order entered in this litigation (ECF 61).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Non-Party SFM's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Protective Order (ECF 69) is granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 2