## Facts

- Ohio death-row inmates brought consolidated § 1983 actions challenging Ohio’s lethal-injection protocol.
- Ohio enacted statutes making execution-related identifying information confidential, including information that could identify lethal-injection drug manufacturers and suppliers.
- Plaintiffs sought discovery of identities of manufacturers, suppliers, and related entities involved in obtaining the drugs, asserting the information was necessary to litigate constitutional challenges to the protocol.
- After an evidentiary hearing, the district court entered a protective order prohibiting disclosure of information that could reveal the identities of drug suppliers/manufacturers and individuals involved in carrying out executions.
- Plaintiffs moved to modify the protective order to permit disclosure to counsel on an “attorneys’ eyes only” basis; the district court denied the request.
- Plaintiffs took an interlocutory appeal challenging the protective order as an abuse of discretion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(c).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) by maintaining a protective order that barred disclosure, even to plaintiffs’ counsel on an “attorneys’ eyes only” basis, of information identifying Ohio’s execution-drug suppliers and manufacturers.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s protective order.
- The court held the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding “good cause” to keep supplier/manufacturer identities confidential and in rejecting an “attorneys’ eyes only” modification.
- The majority concluded the district court reasonably balanced plaintiffs’ asserted need for the information against confidentiality interests supported by state policy and record evidence.
- A dissent would have required a stronger showing of harm from disclosure under narrower safeguards and would have permitted at least attorneys’-eyes-only access.

## Legal Principles

- Protective orders under Rule 26(c) are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and district courts have broad authority to manage discovery in complex litigation.
- “Good cause” exists when the movant shows a legitimate need to protect parties or persons from harms such as harassment, threats, or comparable adverse consequences that may follow disclosure.
- In applying Rule 26(c), a district court may limit discovery and restrict dissemination of sensitive information after weighing (a) the requesting party’s litigation need against (b) the harms and burdens associated with disclosure.
- A court may conclude that an “attorneys’ eyes only” restriction is insufficient where the record supports heightened confidentiality concerns and the order still allows other discovery relevant to the claims.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld a broad confidentiality order preventing disclosure of execution-drug supplier and manufacturer identities, concluding the district court had “good cause” under Rule 26(c) and acted within its discretion in declining to allow even attorneys’-eyes-only access to identifying information.


In re Ohio Execution Protocol Litig., 845 F.3d 231 (6th Cir. 2016)