United States District Court, District of Columbia
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
M. MERIWEATHER, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant, the United States Capitol
Police's (“USCP”), request that the Court
enforce the Stipulated Protective Order, approved in edited
form by the Honorable Ketanji Brown Jackson on February 24,
2017. See Def.'s Mot. to Enforce Protective Order and for
Sanctions (“Def.'s Mot.”), ECF No. 36; see
also Order (“Protective Order”), ECF No. 12
(docket text directing parties to edits in Paragraphs 10 and
13). The USCP seeks the redaction of certain information
filed as part of Plaintiff Chrisavgi Sourgoutsis's
(“Plaintiff” or “Ms. Sourgoutsis”)
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant's Third
and Fourth Affirmative Defenses. See Def.'s Mot.
¶¶ 6-8; see also Pl.'s Mot. Partial Summ. J.
(“Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J.”), ECF No. 29. United
States District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson referred the
USCP's Motion to Enforce Protective Order and for
Sanctions (“Motion to Enforce”) to the
undersigned Magistrate Judge for resolution. See 11/16/17
Minute Order. Having considered the parties' submissions
and attachments thereto, the Court GRANTS the USCP's
Motion to Enforce.
factual background underlying this case has previously been
set forth in Sourgoutsis v. United States Capitol
Police, 323 F.R.D. 100 (D.D.C. 2017). The Court
incorporates that factual background here by reference.
Sourgoutsis, 323 F.R.D. at 104.
current dispute arises out of information included in Ms.
Sourgoutsis's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment filed
on October 20, 2017. See Def.'s Mot. ¶ 4. On October
23, 2017, counsel for the USCP notified Plaintiff's
counsel that her filing contained information identified as
confidential under the Protective Order. See Id.
¶ 5; Pl.'s Opp'n to Def.'s Mot.
(“Pl.'s Opp'n”) at 1, ECF No. 41; see
also Def.'s Reply in Supp. of Def.'s Mot.
(“Def.'s Reply”), Ex. 1 (“Scindian
Decl.”) at 5, ECF No. 44-1. On October 25, 2017, the
parties conferred on the matter, and Plaintiff agreed to make
redactions. See Def.'s Mot. ¶¶ 6-7; Pl.'s
Opp'n at 1. Upon review of Plaintiff's proposed
redactions, on October 27, 2017, the USCP identified three
additional paragraphs in Exhibit 12 - paragraphs 18, 26, and
28 - that required redaction. Scindian Decl. ¶ 5 &
at 11-12 (Ex. 2). Likewise on October 30, 2017, the USCP
identified three more paragraphs for redaction in
Plaintiff's Brief in Support of Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, specifically in the Brief's Statement
of Undisputed Facts - Paragraphs 42, 43, and 44. Scindian
Decl. ¶ 6 & at 14-17 (Ex. 3); see also Def.'s
Mot. ¶ 7.
October 30, 2017, Ms. Sourgoutsis filed a Motion to
Substitute to replace the previously-filed versions of
Exhibits 8 and 12. Mot. to Substitute Docket Nos. 29-10 and
29-14 (“Pl.'s Mot. to Substitute”) ¶ 4,
ECF No. 34. That motion indicated that the parties disagreed
about additional redactions in Exhibit 12. See Pl.'s Mot.
to Substitute at 1 n.1. The Court granted the Motion to
Substitute. See 10/31/17 Minute Order.
USCP subsequently filed the instant Motion to Enforce
Protective Order and for Sanctions, alleging that Ms.
Sourgoutsis's filings included information designated as
confidential, contrary to the procedures established in the
Protective Order. See Def.'s Mot. ¶¶ 6-8. In
her opposition, Ms. Sourgoutsis principally asserted that
there was no basis to apply the protective order's
confidentiality requirement to “all deposition
transcripts and exhibits.” Pl.'s Opp'n at 4.
Ms. Sourgoutsis also argued that the parties had agreed to
protect as confidential only certain information, such as
names of comparator employees, “despite the language of
the protective order.” Id. at 1. The USCP
filed a reply. See generally Def.'s Reply, ECF No. 44.
The matter is ripe for resolution.
Rule of Civil Procedure 26 provides that “for good
cause” a court may issue a protective order “to
protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment,
oppression, or undue burden or expense.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
26(c)(1). The Court “has inherent power to enforce its
own lawful orders.” Adem v. Bush, No. 05-723
(RWR)(AK), 2006 WL 1193853, at *8 (D.D.C. Apr. 28, 2006).
That power permits the Court to interpret the terms of a
court-issued protective order. See id.
parties have not clearly identified the precise statements
that are within the scope of their dispute. However, based on
the briefing, proposed order, and the attachments to the
USCP's Reply, the Court has determined that the parties
dispute whether the filings cited below contain information
that must be treated as confidential under the Protective
Statement of Undisputed Facts of Plaintiff s Brief in Support
of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 29-1:
• Paragraph 42
• Paragraph 43
• Paragraph 44
Plaintiffs Exhibit 12 to its Motion for Partial Summary