325 F. Supp. 3d 158
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Defendant Kingsbury sought discovery of MPD body-worn camera (BWC) footage and PPMS/CADRPTS police personnel/disciplinary data; government moved for protective orders limiting use and disclosure.
- This Court previously denied substantially similar restrictions in United States v. Johnson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 248 (D.D.C. 2018), while allowing a prohibition on public disclosure of footage.
- Parties failed to agree on joint protective orders; Kingsbury filed oppositions proposing Johnson-style limits for BWC footage and a more limited protective order for personnel data.
- Government sought broad restrictions for both categories, including shifting redaction burdens to defense, barring use in other cases, limiting intra-office sharing, and requiring destruction after acquittal.
- Court found generalized privacy interests (including police privacy) and D.C. statutory/regulatory regimes support limiting public dissemination of BWC footage, but rejected many of the government’s proposed burdens as in Johnson.
- Court granted protective orders with modifications: bars public disclosure of BWC and personnel data outside the Federal Public Defender Office except as needed for Kingsbury’s defense or other cases where the FPD represents, but rejects redaction/destroy/share prohibitions and allows intra-office sharing and retention after acquittal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a protective order can bar public disclosure of BWC footage | Gov't: BWC likely contains sensitive information; public disclosure should be prohibited | Kingsbury: Only one video depicts a civilian; other footage should be unrestricted | Court: Public disclosure barred for all BWC footage; protective order entered (consistent with Johnson) |
| Whether protective order may require defense to redact sensitive info from BWC before disclosure | Gov't: Defense should bear redaction burden | Kingsbury: Opposes shifting redaction burden | Court: Rejected shifting redaction burden to defense (Johnson precedent) |
| Whether protective order may bar defense from sharing materials with colleagues or using in other cases | Gov't: Ban intra-office sharing and use in other cases | Kingsbury: Requests ability to share with FPD colleagues and use in other FPD cases | Court: Permitted intra-office sharing and use in other FPD cases; prohibited public dissemination only |
| Scope and restrictions for PPMS/CADRPTS personnel/disciplinary data | Gov't: Broad restrictions mirroring BWC proposed order | Kingsbury: Proposes Johnson-analogous, more limited order | Court: Adopted Kingsbury’s more limited order—bar public disclosure but allow intra-office sharing, use in other FPD cases, no redaction/destroy requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Johnson, 314 F. Supp. 3d 248 (D.D.C. 2018) (rejected many government-imposed restrictions on body-worn camera materials but approved prohibition on public disclosure)
- Huthnance v. District of Columbia, 255 F.R.D. 285 (D.D.C. 2008) (police disciplinary information implicates privacy interests and may warrant protective order)