Judge approves protective order in lawsuit against state police officials

A confidentiality agreement and protective order approved by a federal judge will bar the public disclosure of what is believed to be “nonpublic and sensitive security information” in a Little Rock man’s lawsuit against Arkansas State Police officials.

Don Lloyd Cook, 61, filed the complaint in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas in June 2022 after he was struck in the head by a police bean bag projectile outside the Arkansas Capitol while participating in a 2020 racial-justice protest.

Cook was transported from the scene to the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, where he later underwent emergency surgery due to the injuries to his face, jaw and teeth, according to the complaint.

He was arrested at his home in 2021 on a misdemeanor offense of obstructing governmental operations tied to the protest, but the charge was later dismissed under a pretrial diversion agreement.

In addition to Ryan Wingo, the state trooper who fired the bean bag projectile, and then-Arkansas State Police Director Col. William Bryant, the lawsuit named seven other state police officials, five of them unidentified.

Cook is represented in the case by attorney Michael J. Laux.

In April, attorneys for both sides submitted a joint motion that asked the judge to approve the protective order in order to shield “confidential, sensitive and private information concerning the location of security cameras on the Arkansas State Capitol building.”

On Aug. 7, U.S. District Judge Kristine G. Baker entered the mutually agreed-up

on protective order, which says it “is applicable to the parties for the sole purpose of facilitating” the discovery process.

Documents containing nonpublic, sensitive security information can be deemed confidential regardless of the recording medium, the order says.

Under the framework approved by the judge, when producing documents, including video or audio recordings, parties and non-parties to the lawsuit can designate them as confidential.

Deposition testimony also can be flagged as confidential, according to the order.

A party receiving material deemed confidential can make the case in writing within 30 days that the material should not be subject to the order’s protections. If an objection is raised by another party, the party receiving the material can seek out an order from the judge on the issue.

“The parties agree that Confidential Materials shall not be disclosed, directly or indirectly, to anyone other than the parties, counsel for the parties, witnesses, consultants and expert witnesses specially retained or specially employed for this case,” the order says.

Before receiving confidential materials, each “non-party witness, consultant, or expert witness” must agree in writing to abide by the terms of the order and return all confidential materials at the conclusion of the case.

However, the order does not prevent “any party from disclosing Confidential Materials to the Court, its staff, and court reporters at deposition or trial, subject to such protections as the Court may order.”

Individuals subject to the order are barred from using confidential materials in separate litigation or for any other purpose beyond Cook’s case. The order also prohibits the disclosure of confidential materials via the public court docket.

A trial is scheduled for the week of Jan. 22, 2024.