Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Painter v. Adams

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

February 1, 2017

GREGORY TODD PAINTER, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
JONATHAN ADAMS, et al., Defendants.

          Counsel for Defendants: JOSH STEIN Attorney General, Catherine F. Jordan Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice

          Counsel for the Plaintiff, Laura Cobb Arnold & Smith, PLLC.

          PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER

          David C. Keesler United States Magistrate Judge.

         This matter coming before the Court on joint motion by Parties pursuant to section (b)(11) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a for an order permitting disclosure of certain records in the possession of the Department of the Army (U.S. Army Cadet Command) for use in private litigation in the above-captioned litigation, and the court being fully informed, it is hereby ORDERED that records in the possession of the Department of the Army (U.S. Army Cadet Command) relating to this litigation may be disclosed to all parties to be used solely for the purposes of this case and not otherwise.

         WHEREAS, in this action, Plaintiff Gregory Painter (“Plaintiff”), a former student of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte (“the University”), alleged that he was denied his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment by Defendants the University, The University of North Carolina, The Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, and Jonathan Adams, Christine Reed Davis, Arthur R. Jackson, David E. Broome, Andrew Dies, Mark Lariviere, and Katherine Hall-Hertel, in their official capacities;

         WHEREAS, discovery sought in this action may require the production of certain confidential information, such as State employee personnel files protected pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 126-22 et seq. and information protected by the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, as well as information released pursuant to the Privacy Act, 5 USC 552a(b)(11);

         WHEREAS, this Court entered a consent protective order for this case on October 28, 2016 (DE #81), this consent protective order incorporates the previously entered consent protective order, and also includes and applies to any documents obtained from Defendants' Touhy request from the Army; and

         WHEREAS, Plaintiff and the University have agreed to the entry of this Order protecting the confidentiality of such information, and there is good cause for the issuance of this Order pursuant to Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

         IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

         1. In accordance with the provisions set forth below, the Court intends that confidential information and documents produced, obtained or exchanged in the course of this action shall be used by the party to whom such documents are produced, obtained or exchanged solely for the purpose of this lawsuit and for no other purpose.

         2. Any documents produced or exchanged between The Army, Plaintiff and the University, and any information contained in discovery, including but not limited to deposition testimony and deposition exhibits, which a party believes is protected from disclosure under governing law, may be designated as “Confidential.” All documents and information so designated and all copies thereof (hereinafter referred to collectively as “Confidential Information”), shall be treated as confidential and shall not be disclosed except as provided in this Order; provided, however, that counsel for the party designating information as Confidential may, in writing and without Court approval, agree to release any of the Confidential Information from the requirements of this Order; and provided further that nothing in this Order shall prevent any party from challenging the designation of any document as Confidential.

         3. Any party may designate a document as Confidential pursuant to the terms of this Order by affixing to the first page thereof a stamp with the legend “CONFIDENTIAL” or may, in the alternative, by written notice inform opposing counsel that the document is to be treated as Confidential Information. It is agreed by the parties that if a party wishes to maintain the confidentiality of the document in a brief or other court filed document, then the party must follow the procedures set forth in paragraphs 9 and 10 of this Consent Protective Order. Further, initially designating a document as Confidential does not obligate either party to later file it under seal unless so required by this Court.

         4. Confidential Information shall be produced only to counsel of record in this action, each of whom is bound by the terms of this Order.

         5. The following documents are to be designated as “CONFIDENTIAL” and released by the Army pursuant to subpoena, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.