June Medical Services LLC v. Gee

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

JUNE MEDICAL SERVICES, CIVIL ACTION

LLC, ET AL.

VERSUS

REBEKAH GEE, ET AL. NO. 16-00444-BAJ-RLB

ORDER

On January 7, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

remanded this matter to this Court with instructions that it re-evaluate its prior

sealing Orders that adopted the Agreement of the parties, and to do so by the

standards established by the Circuit, as clarified in its January 7 Opinion. (Doc. 386).

On January 18, 2022, this Court ordered the parties to file a

Joint Memorandum addressing all disputed sealing issues in this matter, relying

solely on the guidance set forth in the Fifth Circuit's January 7 Opinion. (Doc. 387).

The Court required the parties to meet and confer in good faith to determine which

documents: (1) should be unsealed; (2) should be unsealed subject to redaction;

(3) should remain sealed; and (4) remain subject to disagreement. (/d.).

On January 21, 2022, the parties filed their Jomt Memorandum in compliance

with the Court’s Order. (Doc. 390). Of the 177 documents originally in dispute (the

“177 Disputed Documents”), the parties now stipulate that 150 documents should be

unsealed in their entirety; that two documents should remain under seal; and that

two additional documents should be unsealed subject to redaction. (d.). This leaves

only 23 documents actually in dispute following the Circuit’s remand. (/d.). The Court

will address each category of documents in turn.

I. BACKGROUND

This case arises out of a challenge to seven Louisiana laws that regulate

abortion procedures. (Doc. 88). At the outset of this matter, the Court granted the

three Doctor-Plaintiffs’ Motion to proceed under pseudonyms. (Doc. 8; Doc. 12, the

“Pseudonym Order”). The Court also granted the parties’ Joint Motions for Stipulated

Protective Orders and entered Protective Orders regarding the handling of

“confidential and sensitive documents.” (Doc. 95; Doc. 96; Doc. 149; Doc. 154;

Doc. 157; Doc. 158). In their Joint Motions, the parties expressly agreed that the real

names of the Dr. Does “shall be placed under seal.” (Doc. 96, p. 4).

Despite the parties’ purported Agreements, and for reasons not entirely clear

to the Court, the Defendants have breached their agreement and continue to dispute

which documents should be filed under seal and whether the Pseudonym Order

should continue to apply. As a result, a dispute has arisen regarding which documents

should be filed on the open record, under seal, or with redactions. These disputes have

demanded an inordinate amount of time, attention, and resources from the parties

and the Court, particularly in light of the parties’ prior agreements. Moreover, they

have resulted in multiple orders addressing sealing issues, including (most recently)

this Court’s November 30, 2020 Ruling and Order granting in part Defendants’

motions to reconsider prior sealing orders entered by the Magistrate Judge. (Doc. 347,

the “November 380 Order’).

On appeal, the Fifth Circuit vacated the Court's November 30 Order and issued

a limited remand directing the Court to evaluate its prior Rulings under the legal

standard the Circuit further clarified in its January 7 Opinion. (Doc. 386, p. 14).

In accordance with the January 7 Opinion, the Court has since conducted a

comprehensive “document-by-document,’ ‘line-by-line’ balancing of ‘the public’s

common law right of access against the interests favoring nondisclosure[]” and has

identified the proper status of each document at issue. (d.).

II. DISCUSSION

A. Documents to be Unsealed Per Stipulation of Parties

Relying on the Fifth Circuit’s January 7 Opmion, the parties stipulate that the

following 150 documents should be unsealed. (Doc. 390, p. 1-6). Accordingly, the

Court orders that the documents listed below shall be UNSEALED,

ee - Documents to Be Uns eale □□

Document Number Document Title

201-1 Defs.’ Mem. ISO Motion

201-8 Grand Jury Report

201-4 LSBME Consent Judgment

201-5 LSBME FOFs

201-7 LSBME Discipline History

247-11 Email Correspondence

247-12 Email Correspondence

247-18 Email Correspondence

247-14 Email Correspondence

Email Correspondence

ov

Nola.com Article’

Version)

Pennsylvania Board of Medicine Public Order and

Consent Agreement

Grand Jury Findings & Order

License

License

(Confidential Version)

Version)

Document Number Document Title

300-2 Memorandum in Reply to Defs.’ Opp.

3808-3 Defs.’ Consolidated Opp. to Third-Party Physicians’

Motion

303-4

303-5 Clinic website

272-42 LSBME Consent Order

B. Documents to be Unsealed Subject to Redaction Per

Stipulation of Parties

The parties further stipulate that the following two documents should be

unsealed subject to redaction. (Doc. 390, p. 7).

Document Number Document Title

247-4 Email Correspondence

212-51 Deposition Transcript Excerpt

The Court has reviewed the parties’ proposed redactions, which would protect

three non-party doctors’ names and the address of a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

30(b)(6) corporate representative. (Doc. 390-1—Doc. 390-2). These proposed redactions

are de minimus. Moreover, the underlying documents are not public records.

Additionally, with respect to the issue of the corporate representative’s address, the

Circuit directed the Court to “consider the option to unseal the testimony with

appropriate redactions.” (Doc. 386, p. 14).

Noting the presumption in favor of access, the Court finds that the parties’

stipulated redactions are minimal and appropriate. A layperson can understand the

documents even with the redaction of the few words proposed by the parties. Indeed,

a Rule 380(b)(6) corporate representative’s address is irrelevant to the litigation and

adds no value to the deposition testimony. Accordingly, the Court orders the

above-referenced documents be UNSEALED SUBJECT TO REDACTION

consistent with the parties’ stipulation. (Doc. 247-4; Doc, 272-51).

C. Documents to Remain Sealed Per Stipulation of Parties

The parties further stipulate that the following two documents should remain

sealed. (Doc. 390, p. 7).

These documents are two copies of the same preliminary Incident Investigation

Report. The Incident Investigation Report appears to contain a preliminary intake

form of alleged concerns regarding an abortion provider. Given the sensitive nature

of these documents, and the parties’ stipulation that they should remain sealed, the

Court hereby orders that the above-referenced documents shall remain UNDER

SEAL. (Doc. 273-3; Doc, 289-14).

D. Disputed Documents

A total of 28 documents remain in dispute. (Doc. 390, p. 7-16). Plaintiffs argue

that each of these documents should be unsealed subject to redactions. (/d.).

10

Defendants contend that many of these documents should be unsealed in full and

they oppose Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions. The Court will address each disputed

decument in turn.

i, Pseudonym Order

First, the parties dispute whether the Court should permit the continued use

of pseudonyms for the Dr. Does. (Doc. 390). Plaintiffs assert that the Dr. Does have

experienced harassment, intimidation, and physical and verbal threats of violence,

and seek to protect their identities because they fear that “they and their families

will be subjected to heightened acts of harassment, intimidation, and violence, as well

as retaliation in their professional practices, if their identities are made public in

connection with this litigation.” Ud. at p. 16). Netably, the original Pseudonym Order

was supported by Declarations proffered by the Dr. Does in June 2016, submitted in

support of the Dr. Does’ original request to proceed under pseudonyms. (See Docs. 8-4,

8-5, 8-6).

Defendants respond that the continued use of pseudonyms, or the

accompanying redaction of the doctors’ names, is inappropriate. (Doc. 390, p. 10).

Defendants argue that Dr. Doe 2 testified that “you can find out from the Internet

that [he performs] abortions.” (d.). Defendants note that Dr. Doe 2 has litigated

abortion cases in his own name and has given media interviews identifying himself

as an abortion provider. (Id.).

In relevant part, the Circuit's January 7 Opinion provides the following

guidance regarding the Dr. Does’ continued use of pseudonyms:

11

The party doctors’ request for anonymity is itself an unusual practice.

Abortion providers regularly litigate under their own names. See, e.g.,

Planned Parenthood of Wis., Inc. v. Kaul, 384 F. Supp. 3d 982, 984

(W.D. Wis. 2019), aff'd, 942 F.3d 793 (7th Cir. 2019) Gnvolving a case

brought by Dr. Kathy King, Natalee Hartwig, Sara Beringer, and

Katherine Melde, on behalf of themselves and their patients);

Little Rock Fam. Plan. Servs. v. Rutledge, 397 F. Supp. 3d 1218, 1220

(H.D. Ark. 2019) (granting preliminary injunction to Dr. Thomas

Tvedten, on behalf of himself and his patients), affd, 984 F.3d 682

(8th Cir. 2021), petttion for cert. filed, No. 20-1434 (U.S. Apr. 18, 2021);

Robinson v. Marshall, 415 F. Supp. 3d 1053, 1055 (M.D. Ala. 2019)

(granting injunction to Dr. Yashica Robinson, on behalf of her patients);

Whole Woman’s Health v. Paxton, No. 17-CV-690, 2017 WL 11606683,

at *J-2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2017) (denying pseudonym request and

noting that “[w]hat transpires in the courtroom is public property”

(alteration in original) (quoting Doe v. Stegall, 653 F.2d 180, 185 (6th

Cir. 1981))). They also—-as licensed professionals—operate under their

own names and are often already known or knowable by other means.

For example, Doe 2 acknowledged in his deposition that “you can find

out from the internet that [he provides] abortions” and he has submitted

public declarations in past abortion htigation.

Furthermore, this court does not usually allow parties to proceed

anonymously based on generalized concerns. For example, we affirmed

this district court's denial of a police officer’s request to proceed as an

anonymous plaintiff. See Doe v. Mckesson, 945 F.3d 818, 8385 n.12

(5th Cir. 2019), vacated on other grounds, 141 S. Ct. 48 (2020). That

officer argued that “the public nature of his job put{] him and his family

in danger of additional violence,” and he listed examples of acts of

violence perpetrated against police officers for political reasons. fd, That

was not enough. We approved of the district court’s rejection of that

argument because “the incidents Officer Doe listed did not involve

Officer Doe and were not related to this lawsuit.” Id. Indeed, “Officer

Doe conceded that he had received no particularized threats of violence

since filing his lawsuit.” Id.

(Doc. 386, p. 11-12).

While the Court appreciates the Fifth Circuits resolve to have this matter

reviewed within 30 days, and having endeavored diligently to fulfill its limited

mandate (with the parties’ assistance), this Court concludes that the interests of

12

justice and fairness to both parties demand additional evidentiary development to

determine whether the Dr. Does may establish the sort of “particularized” concerns

justifying continued use of pseudonyms, as noted by the Circuit. In making this

determination, the Court notes that two of the three Dr. Does’ original June 2016

declarations—which provided the evidentiary basis for this Court’s original

Pseudonym Order—set forth accounts of physical and verbal threats related to their

work performing abortions, including threats that resulted in the involvement of the

police and the FBI. (See Doc. 8-6, [ 3-4; see also Doc. 8-5, | 3). The Court further

notes that in support of their original July 2016 request for anonymity, the Dr. Does

cited multiple authorities from within this Circuit showing that “courts, including in

this District, routinely enter protective orders to safeguard the identities of such

individuals who fear for their safety and well-being.” (Doc. 8-2, p. 5).! By contrast, the

Circuit's January 7 Opinion cites exclusively to authorities that posi-date the Dr.

Does’ original motion.

Accordingly, the Court will enter an expedited briefing schedule and set an

evidentiary hearing to allow the Dr. Does an oppertunity to set forth evidence of

1 Specifically, the Dr. Does cited the following authorities: Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973);

Doe v. Bolton, 410 U.S. 179 (1973); June Med. Servs. v. Caldwell, No. 14-cv-525

(M.D. La. Aug, 28, 2014) (ECF No. 24); Jackson Women’s Health Org. v. Currier,

No. 12-ev-486 (8.D. Miss. May 22, 2018) (ECF Ne. 98); Hope Med. Grp. for Women v.

Caldwell, No. 10-ev-0511 (M.D. La. Aug. 9, 2010) (ECF No. 9); K.P, M.D. v. LeBlane,

No. 07-ev-0879 (M.D. La. Jan. 7, 2008) GiCF No. 24); Choice, Inc. of Tex. v. Graham,

226 F.R.D, 545 (E.D. La. 2005) (granting plaintiff's motion to proceed pseudonymously when

raising the “right to choose and seek abortion services, a quintessentially private matter,”

and noting that plaintiffs, “by filing suit, made revelations about their personal behefs and

practices which may invite a hostile reaction from the public.”); VictoriaW. v. Larpenter,

No. 00-1960, 2001 WL 406334 (E.D. La. Apr. 17, 2001); Sojourner v. Reemer,

772 F. Supp. 930 (H.D. La. 1991), aff'd, 974 F.2d 27 (Sth Cir, 1992).

13

“particularized” concerns sufficient to justify the continued use of pseudonyms in this

matter. Until such time, the Court will withhold issuing a ruling on the continued

applicability of the Pseundonym Order, and the current anonymity of the Dr. Does

shall remain pending further orders of the Court.”

ii. Public Records

1. Deficiencies Reports

Plaintiffs propose redactions to “deficiencies reports.” (Doc. 247-10; Doc. 270-9;

Doc. 270-25; Doc. 272-38; Doc. 390, p. 8-9, 11). Plaintiffs contend that patient

identifying information should be redacted because the interest in protecting patient

privacy outweighs any “purported” right of access to this information. (Doc, 390,

p. 8-9; 11). Defendants respond that these documents should be unsealed in their

entirety because they are public records. (Id.).

The Court has reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions. (Doc. 392-2;

Doc. 893-1; Doc. 8938-2; Doc. 394-6). Plaintiffs propose redaction of patients’ dates of

. births, administrators’ signatures, and the number of Cesarean Section procedures

performed on such patients. While the redactions are minimal, the Fifth Circuit

ordered that the Court “shall not seal or order redaction of any publicly available

documents or information.” (Doe. 386, p. 18). Because the deficiencies reports are

publicly available, and despite the sensitive nature of the information in the reports,

2 In many of the disputed documents, the parties contest both the continued applicability of

the Pseudonym Order as well as other issues, such as redaction of patient identifying

information, signatures, and “highly sensitive” information. To follow, the Court will address

all disputed redaction issues. To be clear, however, until further order of the Court, the

Dr. Does shall remain anonymous. Thus, regardless of the Court’s ultimate determination

regarding redaction issues, all documents shall, for now, retain the Dr. Does’ pseudonyms.

14

the reports shall be unsealed in their entirety. (Doc. 247-10; Doe. 270-9; Doc. 270-25;

Doc. 272-38).

2. Licensing Documents

For the same reason, the checklist for initial licensing and licensing

application—which are also public records—shall be unsealed in their entirety.

(Doc. 270-40; Doc. 270-41).4

3. Judicial Records

Plaintiffs propose redaction of patient identifying information and “highly

sensitive information” regarding Dr. Doe 5 in a Motion for Summary Judgment,

8 The Court notes that Plaintiffs also propose redactions to signatures contained in these

documents. The Court addresses this next. See infra, Section II(D\iii).

4 Plaintiffs propose redaction of Dr. Doe 5’s home address, personal phone number, personal

email address, and signature. (Doc. 390, p. 9). While the Court appreciates Plaintiffs’ concern

that disclosure of this information will increase the risk of severe harassment and violence

in connection with this litigation, the Fifth Circuit has mandated that the Court shall not

order redaction of publicly available documents. (Doe, 386, p. 13).

Plaintiffs also seek te redact an Employer Identification Number. (Doc. 394-1, p. 21).

Defendants agree that redaction of the Employer Identification Number appears to be

appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5.2. (Doc. 390, p. 9). Rule 5.2

provides:

(a) Redacted Filings. Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or

paper filing with the court that contains an individual's social-security

number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an

individual known to be a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or

nonparty making the filing may include only:

(1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayer-

identification number;

(2) the year of the individual's birth;

(3) the minor's initials: and

(4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.

Here, however, the Circuit has “orderfed] otherwise.” (Doc. 886, p. 18 (“On remand,

the district court shall not seal or order redaction of any publicly available documents or

information.”)). Accordingly, the checklist for initial licensing and licensing application shall

be unsealed in their entirety, as mandated by the Circuit. (Doc. 270-40; Doc. 270-41).

15

petitions, and expert report filed in other courts. (Doc. 270-23; Doc. 270-26:

Doc. 270-53; Doe. 270-27; Doc. 803-6; Doc. 390, p. 11, 138-14). The Fifth Circuit has

held: “Judicial records are public records. And public records, by definition, presume

public access.” Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 416 (5th Cir. 2021).

Indeed, the Circuit emphasized in its January 7 Order that “[j]udicial records belong

to the American people; they are public, not private, documents.” (Doc. 386, p. 10

(citing Binh Hoa Le, 990 F.3d at 417)). Because judicial records are public records,

and the Fifth Circuit has ordered that the Court shall not order redaction of same,

the Court cannot permit Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions.

ili. Signatures

Plaintiffs propose redaction of signatures in several documents, citing fraud

and forgery concerns. (Doc. 390). The Fifth Circuit has repeatedly emphasized the

public’s right of access to judicial records, particularly in cases involving matters of

particular public interest, such as the instant case. (Doc. 386, p. 11). Fraud and

forgery concerns, standing alone, do not outweigh the public's interest in transparent

court proceedings. Ud. (“[Wle heavily disfavor sealing information placed in the

judicial record.”)). Accordingly, the Court will not permit redaction of signatures.

(Doc. 270-40; Doc, 270-41; Doc. 2770-23; Doc. 2'70-51; Doc. 803-6; Doc. 270-53),

iv. Deposition Transcripts

Plaintiffs propose redactions to deposition transcripts. (Doc. 247-9; Doc. 270-8;

Doc. 272-21; Doc. 272-50). The Court will address each deposition transcript in turn.

5 The Court notes that Plaintiffs also propose redactions to signatures contained in these

documents. The Court addresses this next. See infra, Section II(D)(iii).

16

1. Deposition Transcript of Dr. Doe 2

Plaintiffs propose redaction of the following categories of information in two

identical deposition transcripts: (a) names of Dr. Does; (b) sensitive information

regarding malpractice coverage; (c) sensitive patient identifying information;

(d) names of non-public staff; and (e) “other highly sensitive information that could

be used to identify Dr. Doe 2.” (Doc. 390, p. 7; Doc. 247-9; Doc. 270-8). The Court has

reviewed Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions. The Court’s analysis and conclusions now

follow.6

First, Plaintiffs propose redaction of information regarding the home states of

abortion providers who attended a particular meeting. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8,

101:9-11 (discussing a meeting attended by abortion providers in Georgia, Alabama,

Mississippi, and Louisiana)). The Court sees no reason to redact this information,

particularly considering the strong presumption in favor of access. (Doc. 247-9 and

Doc. 270-8, 101:9-11; Dec. 386, p. 13). The Court will not permit these redactions.

(Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 101:9-11).

second, Plaintiffs propose redaction of information regarding medical

malpractice insurance. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 58:7~25; 59:12; Doc. 390, p. 7).

Defendants argue that they “do not understand the basis for redaction here,” and note

that Plaintiffs elsewhere concede the name of Dr. Doe 2’s partner “forty years ago.”

(Doc. 390, p. 7). Similarly, the Court sees no reason to redact this information,

§ Plaintiffs’ proposed redactions in the index of the deposition transcript are subject to the

same disposition as the testimony each term accompanies,

17

particularly considering the strong presumption in favor of access. The Court will not

permit these redactions.

Third, Plaintiffs propose redaction of patients’ names used in relation to

lawsuits filed in other courts. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 141:23, 142:6—-9, 323:13,

324:4, 14; 337:15-16, 339:3, 339:23-—24, 340:8--9}. Because judicial records are public

records, and the Fifth Circuit has ordered that the Court shall not order redaction of

publicly available documents, the Court will not permit these redactions.

(Doc. 386, p. 13); Binh Hoa Le v. Exeter Fin. Corp., 990 F.3d 410, 416 (6th Cir. 2021).

Fourth, Plaintiffs propose redaction of “highly sensitive information” regarding

Dr. Doe 2. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 345:16-25, p. 3846:2--25, 347:1~-15, 348:19,

350:18-25, 351:1-22). This information, however, is related to a public lawsuit.

Accordingly, for the same reason, the Court will not permit these redactions.?

(See Doe. 386, p. 18).

Fifth, Plaintiffs propose redaction of the names of non-public staff. (Doc. 247-9

and Doc. 270-8, 120:18—14, 20; 121:2, 11; 159:10-20, 203:21, 311:19). Defendants

elsewhere do not object to the redaction of employees’ names that are not publicly

associated with the abortion provider. (Doc. 390, p. 11). Accordingly, the Court will

permit these redactions to remain.

Sixth, Plaintiffs propose redaction of the number of previous Cesarean Section

procedures performed on patients. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 307:16, 309:14, 320:4).

7 For the same reasons, the Court will not permit redactions of the deposition transcript

excerpts. (Doc. 272-21, p. 346:2-25, 347:1]—15).

18

Defendants rightly point out, however, that this information is public record.

(Doc. 390, p. 8). Indeed, the Court has already unsealed this information elsewhere.

(See Doc. 247-10; see also discussion accompanying Section JI(D)Gi)(1)). Accordingly,

the Court will not permit these redactions. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 307:16,

309:14),

Finally, Plaintiffs specifically propose redaction of information regarding one

patient that is not involved in this case (or any other lawsuit), including the patient’s

name and place of residence. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 332:9-10, 333:3, 333:13,

333:23, 384:6, 336:14). The particular patient at issue is a minor whose identity is not

otherwise publicly known in any judicial proceeding. Accordingly, consistent with

long-standing judicial policy to shield medical information of minors from the public

record, the Court will permit these redactions. (Doc. 247-9 and Doc. 270-8, 332:9--10,

333:8, 883:13, 333:23, 334:6, 336:14); Bradley on behalf of AJW v. Ackal, 954 F.3d 216,

229 (5th Cir. 2020) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 (stating only the initials of a person

“known to be a minor” may be provided in court filings); Globe Newspaper Co. v.

Superior Court for Norfolk Cty., 457 U.S. 596, 607 (1982) (holding, in the

First Amendment context, that “safeguarding the physical and psychological well-

being of a minor” who is a sex crime victim in a criminal case is a “compelling”

interest)).

2. Deposition Transcript of Michael Rothrock

Plaintiffs propose redaction of the name of a non-party physician who provides

counseling at June Medical Services, arguing that disclosure could subject this

19

physician to harassment, intimidation, retaliation, and violence. (Doc. 272-50;

Doc. 390, p. 11; Doc. 394-7). Defendants do not object to the redaction of an employee

not publicly associated with June Medical. (Doc. 890, p. 11). Accordingly, the Court

will permit this redaction. (Doc. 272-50, p. 57:18; 57:20—21; 57:25).

v. Conclusion Regarding Disputed Documents

Following a comprehensive “document-by-document,’ ‘line-by-line’ balancing

of ‘the publics common law right of access against the interests favoring

nondisclosure[,]” the Court finds the following.

|| Ci [Applicability |

| | Cti*«*C*C*iCiM of Rseuonym

Document |Document Permitted =| = (Order

‘Number. | Title... = |Redactions | Reason |Disputed? □

Names of non-

party employees of

abortion providers,

p. 120:13-14, 20;

121:2, 11;

Deposition 159:10—20, 203:21, [Agreement

247-9 Transcript. 311:19 of parties es

Patient name of

minor unrelated to Patient

lawsuit, identifying

information

D. 332:9-10, 333:3, of minor,

Deposition 333:18, 333:23, not public

247-9 Transcript 3384:6, 3386:14 record es

Deficiencies Public

247-10 Report None® record No

Deposition Name of non-party |Agreement

270-8 Transcript employees of of parties es

8 A notation of “none” indicates that no redactions shall be permitted other than redactions

pertaining to the Pseudonym Order. For the reasons stated herein, the Court defers ruling

on the redaction of the Dr. Does’ names at this time.

20

t~*~—“‘“ CSN; CAppplicability |

‘Number | Title ._—||[Redactions._| Reason |Disputed? □□□

abortion provider,

p. 120:13-14, 20;

121:2, 11;

159:10-20, 203:21,

311:19

Patient name of

minor unrelated to Patient

lawsuit identifying

, information

fp. 332:9--10, 333:3, of minor,

Deposition 383:18, 333:28, not public

270-8 Transcript 334:6, 386:14 record es

Deficiencies Public

270-9 Report None record No

Deficiencies Public

270-25 Report None record No

Checklist for

Initial Public

270-40 Licensing None record No

Licensing Public

270-41 Application None record No

N/A, pending

Operation disposition of

270-50 Rescue search [Pseudonym Order? |N/A es

N/A, pending

disposition of

270-54 Google search [Pseudonym Order |N/A es

Deposition

Transcript Public

272-21 Excerpt None record es

Deficiencies Public

212-38 Report None record No

Name of non-party

Deposition employee of

Transcript abortion provider, [Agreement

272-50 Excerpt 57:18; 57:20—-21; jofparties [Yes

The notation “N/A, pending disposition of Pseudonym Order” indicates that the continued

applicability of the Pseudonym Order is the only disputed issue related to this document.

21

Number. | Title .-—s« |Redactions. | Reason |Disputed? |

Public

303-6 Expert Report |None record es

Defs.’ Opp. to

Brinkley’s Mot. Public

272-3 to Quash None record No

N/A, pending

Notice of disposition of

272-47 Subpoena Pseudonym Order |N/A es

N/A, pending

disposition of

210-49 Article Pseudonym Order |N/A Yes

Motion for

Summary Public

270-23 Judgment None record es

Medical

Malpractice Public

270-26 Petition None record es

Medical

Malpractice Public

270-27 Petition None record es

Public

270-538 Petition None record es

N/A, pending

disposition of

270-52 Article Pseudonym Order |N/A es

Declaration of |N/A, pending

Records disposition of

270-48 Custodian Pseudonym Order |N/A es

22.

WI. CONCLUSION

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the rulings set forth herein shall govern the unsealing,

sealing, and redaction of the 177 Disputed Documents pending further order of this

Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that within 14 days of the date of this Order,

the Plaintiffs shall submit a Memorandum setting forth their argument and evidence

supporting their position that the Dr. Does should be allowed to proceed under

pseudonyms, consistent with the standard established by the Circuit. Defendants

shall file an opposition, if any, within 10 days of the date Plaintiffs file their initial

Memorandum. No reply briefs will be permitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an evidentiary hearing is set for Tuesday,

March 22, 2022, at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 2, to determine what basis, if any, exists

to allow the Dr. Does to continue these proceedings under pseudonyms.!0 No post

hearing pleadings will be permitted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pending further order of this Court, the

Pseudonym Order remains in full force and effect.

10 The Court notes that this is its first available opportunity to hold a civil evidentiary hearing

due to a criminal jury trial which must proceed as scheduled due to the mandates of the

Speedy Trial Act.

23

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall file the redacted

documents as outlined herein within 14 days of the issuance of this Order.

Baton Rouge, Louisiana, this T = day of February, 2022

2 C N\A

JUDGE BRIAN A, JACKSON

UNITED STATES DfSTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

24