Angelo Fears v. John Kasich, 845 F.3d 231

Ohio death-row inmates challenge Ohio's lethal-injection protocol and seek discovery about drug suppliers and execution personnel.
District court issued a protective order shielding identities of drug suppliers, manufacturers, and related execution personnel from discovery.
Ohio enacted secrecy statutes in 2014, but the parties treat those statutes as non-controlling for federal discovery; district court relied on Rule 26(c) good-cause standard.
The district court found that disclosure would cause substantial burdens and risks to drug suppliers and Ohio's ability to perform executions.
This court affirmed Phillips v. DeWine and now review the protective order's validity under Rule 26(c); a dissent argues the order was improper.
Key issue arises against the backdrop of an impending three-drug protocol and evolving state practices.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the protective order was proper under Rule 26(c)(1).	Plaintiffs contend no specific harms shown; risk of discovery outweighs need.	Defendants show particularized harm to drug sources and execution capability; good cause exists.	Protective order supported by good cause; not an abuse of discretion.
Whether the district court properly weighed harms to defendants against discovery needs.	Harm is speculative; discovery necessary to prove claims; broad obstruction inappropriate.	Undue burden and risk of harm to suppliers and execution ability justify protection.	District court findings supported by record; balance favoring protection.
Whether the protective order improperly federalizes Ohio secrecy statutes.	Order relies on state secrecy laws to bar federal discovery; violates federal discovery rules.	Statutes are not controlling; order rests on Rule 26(c) good cause, not a federal privilege.	Order does not federalize the Ohio secrecy statute; proper under Rule 26(c).

Phillips v. DeWine, 841 F.3d 405 (6th Cir. 2016) (affirmed related district-court rulings on execution protocol discoveries)
Serrano v. Cintas Corp., 699 F.3d 884 (6th Cir. 2012) (good-cause standard requires specific prejudice or harm)
Cooey v. Strickland, 604 F.3d 939 (6th Cir. 2010) (state interest in timely death-penalty execution supports protection)
Nix v. Sword, 11 Fed.Appx. 498 (6th Cir. 2001) (burden of discovery balancing requires clearly defined injury)
Surles v. Greyhound Lines, Inc., 474 F.3d 288 (6th Cir. 2007) (trial court has wide discretion to limit scope of discovery)
Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc., 364 U.S. 325 (1960) (circumstantial evidence can support factual inferences in discovery rulings)
Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (2005) (due process concerns in procedural protections; caution in limiting rights)
Johnson v. Heffron, 88 F.3d 404 (6th Cir. 1996) (judicial oversight over state processes should be limited)
Williams v. Hobbs, 658 F.3d 842 (8th Cir. 2011) (no non-frivolous Eighth Amendment claim without deviation evidence)
Thompson v. Bell, 580 F.3d 423 (6th Cir. 2009) (government has essential interest in carrying out lawfully imposed sentence)