Dang v. Eslinger,

Whether the privacy interests of inmates and security concerns of security procedure being disclosed should allow the issuance of a protective order over a Rule 34 request to enter a jail and inspect photograph and video footage of alleged incident.

The court denied the motion and part and affirmed in part. The court denied issuing the protective order. The court held that visitors to the jail is not a substantial intrusion to the daily, private lives of inmates, who already have a reduced expectation of privacy within prison, and the plaintiff had even offered to conceal the faces of the inmates for any privacy concerns. Lastly, the court held that while the prison has a legitimate interests in preserving the secrecy of their security protocols and locations of security cameras, a confidentiality order on the evidence collected by plaintiff’s discovery request suffices to keep the security interests secret.

Defendant Sheriff’s Motion for Protective Order with Respect to Plaintiff’s Rule 34 Request to Enter Jail and Inspect, Photograph and Video-Record (Doc. 81)

Plaintiff’s Response and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant, Sheriff’s Motion for Protective Order (Doc. 86)

Order (Doc. 101)