# June Medical Services LLC v. Gee

> District Court, M.D. Louisiana · February 7, 2022

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192156

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Louisiana
- **Decided:** February 7, 2022
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192156

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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

## Opinion text

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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10192156. Public record. Not legal advice.