Tingle v. Hebert, 3:15-cv-00626

Plaintiff (Brette Tingle) sued former ATC Commissioner Troy Hebert alleging retaliation (42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983), invasion of privacy, and defamation after his ATC termination; claims relate to his participation as an EEOC witness and related litigation.
During Hebert’s December 2016 deposition, plaintiff’s counsel asked about documents and interactions involving Sarah Palmer, Chris Young, and the Louisiana Oyster House/Star Steak and Lobster; Hebert invoked the Fifth Amendment.
Palmer had publicly alleged Hebert extorted sexual favors in exchange for licensing help; news reports indicated an FBI public-corruption investigation that referenced Palmer and Young.
Hebert moved for a protective order to bar discovery into Palmer, Young, and Star Steak and Lobster (or alternatively to stay the case until any criminal exposure had prescribed), arguing the topics are irrelevant and he reasonably feared incrimination.
Plaintiff argued the evidence could show intent/plan (Rule 404(b)) and contended Hebert’s counsel had opened the door to the topics; plaintiff also sought fees for responding to the motion.
The magistrate judge granted a protective order limiting discovery into Palmer, Young, and Star Steak and Lobster as irrelevant to the pleaded claims/defenses, reserved trial admissibility to the district judge, denied the stay as moot, and denied plaintiff’s fee request.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery into Sarah Palmer, Chris Young, and Star Steak and Lobster is permissible	Evidence shows plan/intent and relevance (Rule 404(b)); Hebert’s counsel opened the door by questioning about infidelity	Topics are unrelated to retaliation, invasion of privacy, or defamation claims and were meant to harass; Fifth Amendment assertion supports protection	Protective order granted for discovery phase: plaintiff is prohibited from seeking information on Palmer, Young, and Star Steak and Lobster during discovery; trial admissibility reserved to district judge
Whether the case should be stayed pending potential/possible criminal prosecution	No overlapping criminal proceeding; no evidence an indictment is imminent; stay unnecessary and prejudicial to plaintiff	Hebert contends he cannot defend civilly without risking self-incrimination and requests stay until criminal prescription expires	Motion to stay denied as moot (court declined to impose a stay)
Whether plaintiff is entitled to fees for responding to the motion	Requests costs and attorney’s fees for responding	Motion lacked merit on plaintiff’s view, but defendant’s protection request was justified	Request for costs/fees denied

In re Terra Int’l, Inc., 134 F.3d 302 (5th Cir. 1998) (movant bears burden to show particularized facts demonstrating good cause for a protective order)
Oppenheimer Fund, Inc. v. Sanders, 437 U.S. 340 (U.S. 1978) (discovery relevance is construed broadly)
Goldsmith v. Bagby Elevator Co., Inc., 513 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 2008) (404(b) evidence of intent may be admissible where it relates to hostile work environment claims)
United States v. Garrett, 571 F.2d 1323 (5th Cir. 1978) (discussing specificity required to show good cause for protective relief)
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308 (U.S. 1976) (Fifth Amendment adverse inferences and limits in civil contexts explained)